search for: hatred

...I'm curious what has made some people hate LVM so much. > > > > (3) It's being pushed as default on everyday ordinary users, who > > have absolutely no need for it. > > > That is not lvm's fault, but the distro's decision. Agreed, but remember that hatred is not a rational thing. When one sees LVM being pushed onto them by their favorite distro, they are not going to blame the distro (because it's their favorite distro, you know...), but rather the LVM itself. Psychology is a curious thing. ;-) > > Also, related to (3), there was that fa...

...e some people hate LVM so much. >> > >> > (3) It's being pushed as default on everyday ordinary users, who >> > have absolutely no need for it. >> > >> That is not lvm's fault, but the distro's decision. > > Agreed, but remember that hatred is not a rational thing. When one sees <snip> Hold on thar, pardner. I don't "hate" LVM, but don't care for it. And in most cases, or at least my own, and the person who is vehemently against it, it's based on personal experience. How is that "not a rational thing&q...

...mes. > (2) It is fragile. If you have data on top of LVM spread over an array > of disks, and one disk dies, the data on the whole array goes away. That's true of every filesystem that doesn't use RAID or something like it. It's hardly a valid criticism of LVM. > And since hatred is an irrational thing, you need not look any > further than that. ;-) Well, let's not forget that you are the one who said that you despise LVM. As long as you recognize that you aren't rational, I suppose we agree on at least one thing. :)

On 6/23/2015 10:33 AM, Marko Vojinovic wrote: > Inside / (which is mostly always ext4), 100% of the time. :-) > > That said, I prefer virtual machines over multiboot environments, and I > absolutely despise LVM --- that cursed thing is never getting on my > drives. Never again, that is... I'm curious what has made some people hate LVM so much. I have been using it for years

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 18:42:13 -0700 Gordon Messmer <gordon.messmer at gmail.com> wrote: > > I wondered the same thing, especially in the context of someone who > prefers virtual machines. LV-backed VMs have *dramatically* better > disk performance than file-backed VMs. Ok, you made me curious. Just how dramatic can it be? From where I'm sitting, a read/write to a disk

On 6/23/2015 11:23 AM, Mauricio Tavares wrote: > AIX does use lvm a lot. Main difference is their filesystem > allows live shrinking. Kinda nice to dynamically size a partition > depending on needs, as opposite to the so often suggested approach of > formatting the entire drive as one single partition. Symlinking is > great until whatever the destination is does not mount. I

Gordon Messmer wrote: > On 06/23/2015 08:10 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote: >> Ok, you made me curious. Just how dramatic can it be? From where I'm >> sitting, a read/write to a disk takes the amount of time it takes, the >> hardware has a certain physical speed, regardless of the presence of >> LVM. What am I missing? > > Well, there's best and worst case

On 06/24/2015 12:06 PM, Chris Adams wrote: > LVM snapshots make it easy to get point-in-time consistent backups, > including databases. For example, with MySQL, you can freeze and flush > all the databases, snapshot the LV, and release the freeze. Exactly. And I mention this from time to time... I'm working on infrastructure to make that more common and more consistent:

On 6/24/2015 3:11 PM, Chuck Campbell wrote: > Is there an easy to follow "howto" for normal LVM administration > tasks. I get tired of googling every-time I have to do something I > don't remember how to do regarding LVM, so I usually just don't bother > with it at all. I believe it has some benefit for my use cases, but > I've been reticent to use it,

On 6/25/2015 8:50 AM, Robert Heller wrote: > man vgdisplay > man lvdisplay > man lvcreate > man lvextend > man lvresize > man lvreduce > man lvremove > man e2fsck > man resize2fs man xfs_growfs -- john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz

----- Original Message ----- | On 6/25/2015 8:50 AM, Robert Heller wrote: | > man vgdisplay | > man lvdisplay | > man lvcreate | > man lvextend | > man lvresize | > man lvreduce | > man lvremove | > man e2fsck | > man resize2fs | | man xfs_growfs You forgot man "this opinion thread is getting really long" -- James A. Peltier IT Services - Research Computing

On 6/25/2015 11:12 AM, James A. Peltier wrote: > You forgot man "this opinion thread is getting really long" No manual entry for this opinion thread is getting really long -- john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz

On Thu, June 25, 2015 11:59 am, Scott Robbins wrote: > On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 10:49:57AM -0500, Jason Warr wrote: >> >> >> On 6/24/2015 3:11 PM, Chuck Campbell wrote: >> >Is there an easy to follow "howto" for normal LVM administration >> >tasks. I get tired of googling every-time I have to do something I >> >don't remember how to do

Mike - st257 silvertip257 at gmail.com Tue Jun 23 16:40:47 UTC 2015 > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Jason Warr <jason at warr.net> wrote: > > I'm curious what has made some people hate LVM so much. I have been using > > it for years on thousands of > > No clue. > My experiences with LVM have been positive as well. > And in opinion it doesn't add much

Chris Adams linux at cmadams.net Wed Jun 24 13:14:34 UTC 2015 > > > There are plenty of people that have documented the performance > differences, just Google it. This is consistent with what I've experienced. Minimal difference. http://web-docs.gsi.de/~tstibor/iozone/qcow.vs.lvm/ -- Chris Murphy

Chris Adams linux at cmadams.net Wed Jun 24 19:06:19 UTC 2015 >Btrfs may eventually obsolete a lot of > uses of LVM, but that's down the road. LVM is the emacs of storage. It'll be here forever. Btrfs doesn't export (virtual) block devices like LVM can, so it can't be a backing for say iSCSI. And it's also at the moment rather catatonic when it comes to VM images. This

On 06/25/2015 06:44 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > Gordon Messmer gordon.messmer at gmail.com Wed Jun 24 01:42:13 UTC 2015 > >> I wondered the same thing, especially in the context of someone who >> prefers virtual machines. LV-backed VMs have *dramatically* better disk >> performance than file-backed VMs. > I did a bunch of testing of Raw, qcow2, and LV backed VM storage

On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Gordon Messmer <gordon.messmer at gmail.com> wrote: >> , or alternatively making the LVs >> redundant after install is a single command (each) and you can choose >> whether it should be mere mirroring or some MD manged RAID level (modulo >> the LVM RAID MD monitoring issue). > > > I hadn't realized that. That's an

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 1:04 AM, Alice Wonder <alice at domblogger.net> wrote: > Not with a smtp that enforces DANE. I'm aware of how DANE works. The only problem is no MTA outside of Postfix implements it. You can thank the hatred of DNSSEC for that. Brandon Vincent

...limitations of grub, bad defaults and a > lousy upgrade mechanism. And yes, you'd be right, I agree. But the > bottomline was that people with LVM couldn't upgrade (without bending > backwards), while people without LVM didn't even notice that there is a > problem. And since hatred is an irrational thing, you need not look any > further than that. ;-) > > Best, :-) > Marko > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos