LVM not fit for Fedora Core

[John Reiser]

Gilboa Davara wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 07:50 -0800, John Reiser wrote:
> 
>>Gilboa Davara wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Use LVM.
>>>Trust me.
>>>You won't be sorry.
>>
>>I've been there, done that, and regretted it deeply.
>>I got rid of LVM the first chance I could.
>>
>>LVM does not inter-operate with anything else.
>>Grub does not work under LVM.
> 
> 
> Why should it?

Why shouldn't it?  LVM is touted as "the solution" to restrictions
on disk partitioning.  Except that LVM doesn't work for the first
logical access to disk partitions: booting.

>>  Parted does not grok LVM:
> 
> 
> LVM doesn't require parted for in-order to resize partitions.
> It's called logical volume manager for a reason, you know?
> 
> 
>>you cannot create a hard partition from LVM free space.
> 
> 
> HUH?
> Why-on-earth-would-you-want-to-do-that?

To interoperate with the rest of the world, such as other
operating systems, even other distributions of Linux,
that understand DOS partition tables but not LVM.
If you don't have infinitely many boxes then it is useful
to be able to "compromise".

> 
> 
>>Using the rescue CDs is a nightmare under LVM: the LVM
>>setup is not recognized automatically (you must remember
>>what it is) and the rescue environment contains no help
>>or documentation on LVM (such as: the _syntax_ for naming
>>the pieces!)
> 
> 
> I can agree that Feodra documentation on the subject is... missing.
> A. TLDP has an excellent on-line documentation. [1]
> B. system-config-lvm is improvement constantly.
> C. Documentation missing? Join the documentation team and help them fix
> it.

"Get off the bus one stop before I do."  I didn't recognize that
LVM documentation was missing from the rescue CD until I needed it
but it wasn't there.

> 
> Never the less, I never had any problem mounting lvm under rescue CDs.
> 
> 
>>LVM probably kills all low-level backup and recovery.
> 
> 
> At also "kills" when you meed to dynamically set and modify large number
> of partitions on multiple drives.
> 
> 
>>Do not use LVM unless you are 100.000000% certain
>>that you will never be faced with a hardware disaster.
> 
> 
> ... If LVM is stable enough to be the default option under RHEL, its
> stable enough for me.

Data longevity is not the strong suit of RHEL/Fedora Core/Linux.
http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=137068

> Either way, no-body is forcing LVM down your throat.
> Don't like it? Don't use it. Nobody is forcing it down your throat.

_You_ strongly advocated LVM and suggested "You won't be sorry"
without any disclaimers.  I'm supplying some of the omissions.

--