Re: Why LVM (was: HDD long-term data storage with ensured integrity)
Am 08.04.2024 um 23:08 schrieb Stefan Monnier:
> David Christensen [2024-04-08 11:28:04] wrote:
>> Why LVM?
>
> Personally, I've been using LVM everywhere I can (i.e. everywhere
> except on my OpenWRT router, tho I've also used LVM there back when my
> router had an HDD. I also use LVM on my 2GB USB rescue image).
>
> To me the question is rather the reverse: why not?
> I basically see it as a more flexible form of partitioning.
As an LVM-newbie (never used it before, i am more familar with ZFS), i
did already collect quite a bit of misconceptions of mine/design
problems with lvm. Therefore i would rather renew the question: Why?
Just one example:
In order to be able to use thin snapshots on my root partition, i did
every thing i could, to have it inside a thinpool... until i noticed
some weird problems booting from it (attributed to grub), so i setup a
/boot outside, but the problems stayed (due to lvm's limitations).
I came to use it to gain some flexibility (although it is an experiment)
and found myself setting up zfs for its data integrity + flexibility,
just to have a quality backup of the lvm-volume(s) on a zfs pool.
>
> Even in the worst cases where I have a single LV volume, I appreciate
> the fact that it forces me to name things, isolating me from issue
> linked to predicting the name of the device and the issues that plague
> UUIDs (the fact they're hard to remember, and that they're a bit too
> magical/hidden for my taste, so they sometimes change when I don't want
> them to and vice versa).
Even GPT brings you the chance to name hings (like part_label), only it
does not force you. But i have been using that for 10+ years as a routine.
DdB
Reply to: