Not sure if this is udev or the kernel

[David Woodhouse]

On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 22:13 +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> with current hard disk sizes, LVM is really a good thing to have as
> you're not forced to allocate every scrap of the disk at installation
> time, but can resize volumes when needed.

Nobody suggested that users should be 'forced to allocate every scrap of
the disk at installation time'. That really _does_ appear to be a straw
man.

If a user wants to select LVM and allocate only a part of the disk, of
course that should be permitted. I was talking about what the _default_
should be.

Of course LVM has its benefits. I'm certainly not suggesting that we
should remove support for it from the installer. But what percentage of
people actually _use_ the potential that it offers? I certainly don't.
What percentage of Fedora users even know that it's there? 

Most single-disk workstation installs don't seem to benefit from the
fact that LVM gets enabled.

> Your argument of fragility is a strawman, just because you deem LVM
> the spawn of evil doesn't mean that this breakage is not a bug that
> should be fixed.

(I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean by a strawman in that
context. I'm aware of the concept of a straw man argument, of course,
but I don't see how it relates to what I said. What _was_ the straw man
you're referring to -- the words I put in your mouth which I then
contradicted?)

I certainly don't consider LVM to be 'the spawn of evil' -- I just think
it's a poor _default_ because it makes the boot process more fragile,
and I can't imagine that _many_ people actually get any benefit from it
at all (unless of course they actually know and care about it, and would
have enabled it anyway regardless of the default. So they don't benefit
from the fact that it's the default.)

It's just a simple trade-off of risk vs. benefit, for the case of the
user who doesn't know about LVM and _doesn't_ enable it for themselves.

The risks may be relatively small, but they are real. Anything which
introduces extra dependencies in the boot process is something which we
really should be very careful about. I've seen a _lot_ of machines
render themselves unbootable in my time, for a lot of reasons. :)

We should make the boot process as robust as possible. Of _course_
there's a real bug which needs to be (and in fact has been) fixed in
LVM. These things happen. We _know_ these things happen. And we should
make sure our system copes with that as well as possible.

-- 
dwmw2