[Mageia-dev] time to switch from raw partitions to lvm?

Tue Feb 22 04:31:58 CET 2011

Le mardi 22 février 2011 à 03:36 +0100, Wolfgang Bornath a écrit :
+> 2011/2/21 Buchan Milne <bgmilne at staff.telkomsa.net>:
+> > On Monday, 21 February 2011 11:49:27 Thomas Lottmann wrote:
+> >> I am still not convinced of how easy this can be. For having attempted
+> >> to manage (and learn) how to manage LVM partitons with CentOS, it is
+> >> quite complicated. So it certainly has many advantages, but I'm awaiting
+> >> an intuitive disk manager like Diskdrake to manage this stuff without
+> >> the need of preliminary knowledge.
+> >
+> > Yes, with diskdrake, it's no problem. Anaconda's LVM interface is quite
+> > confusing and complex. After installation, AFAIK, you can't access the same
+> > interface. system-config-lvm (if it's still around) was also pretty unusable.
+> >
+> > But, we have diskdrake, so why are the problems of CentOS an issue?
+> 
+> Because (as I remarked earlier) there are people who have other Linux
+> flavors on their harddisk before they try Mageia - what if they do
+> their partitioning with those (i.e. CentOS)?
+
+Well, if they have already partitions to reuse ( ie, ex centos
+partition ), they will just reuse them without lvm and that's all. And
+if they do not have any partition to reuse, or just a part of the disk,
+we are in the same case, there is free space and we can use it as we
+want.
+
+> Again, people do not work all the same. There are people who do their
+> partitioning with 3rd-party apps like gparted or others. There are
+> people who like to have a bootloader in the root partition of each
+> Linux they install (using chainloader in the first Linux' grub), etc.
+
+And what exactly would be broken with lvm and theses schemes ?
+
+Arguments based on "there is some special cases that would requires
+special care" are not very helpful if the special case is not described
+in details, and we cannot have technical discussion based on imprecise
+input. 
+
+> IMHO it is a bad idea to make LVM default, because there are too many
+> cases around where people would not want LVM. LVM as an option is a
+> far better solution and let the user decide what he wants.
+
+Making it be default doesn't mean that the user cannot decide to opt
+out, this argument do not seems very strong.
+
+This is a default, not something that would be forced to use.
+
+And this is not a all or nothing, you can perfectly have a partition in
+the lvm, and one outside ( or several, or any mix you want ).  
+
+-- 
+Michael Scherer
+
+