Marko Vojinovic wrote: > On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 11:15:30 -0500 > 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 production systems with no issues >> that could not be easily explained as myself or someone else doing >> something stupid. And even those issues were pretty few and far >> between. >> >> /opens can of worms > > Well, I can only tell you my own story, I wouldn't know about other > people. Basically, it boils down to the following: > > (1) I have no valid usecase for it. I don't remember when was the last > time I needed to resize partitions (probably back when I was trying to > install Windows 95). Disk space is very cheap, and if I really need to > have *that* much data on a single partition, another drive and a few > intelligently placed symlinks are usually enough. Cases where a symlink > cannot do the job are indicative of a bad data structure design, and > LVM is often not a solution, but a patch over a deeper problem > elsewhere. Though I do admit there are some valid usecases for LVM. > > (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. I > don't know why such a design of LVM was preferred over something more > robust (I guess there are reasons), but it doesn't feel right. A bunch > of flawless drives containing corrupt data is Just Wrong(tm). I know, > one should always have backups, but still... <snip> I thought it was interesting years ago, having seen and worked with it in Tru64. These days, if I needed more space, I'd go with plain RAID. In general, the less complex the better, and the easier to recover when something fails. mark