F18 appears to give two options for installing from scratch: lvm or btrfs. Which one is better from the point of view of the longer-term.
My current HDDs are ext4s. I switched then because I understood that this was the future.
Ranjan
Am 20.01.2013 01:45, schrieb Ranjan Maitra:
F18 appears to give two options for installing from scratch: lvm or btrfs. Which one is better from the point of view of the longer-term.
My current HDDs are ext4s. I switched then because I understood that this was the future.
BTRFS is NOT prodction ready
there is a reason why multiple times was decided not make it the default FS and i would not use it currently because my data are to important
i tested it in a VM some time ago convert from ext4 to ntrafs was easy
some kernel upüdates later it was not possible to mount the test-disk and so i rebootet with the last working one to backup data, re-format with ext4 and this was the last time for a very long time for me to try BTRFS at all . my data are too important, it is not really faster and in many environments you will have really perofromance troubles with BTRFS (virtualization as exapple)
for zero or small benefit risk data - no thanks
On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 01:50:34 +0100 Reindl Harald h.reindl@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 20.01.2013 01:45, schrieb Ranjan Maitra:
F18 appears to give two options for installing from scratch: lvm or btrfs. Which one is better from the point of view of the longer-term.
My current HDDs are ext4s. I switched then because I understood that this was the future.
BTRFS is NOT prodction ready
there is a reason why multiple times was decided not make it the default FS and i would not use it currently because my data are to important
i tested it in a VM some time ago convert from ext4 to ntrafs was easy
some kernel upüdates later it was not possible to mount the test-disk and so i rebootet with the last working one to backup data, re-format with ext4 and this was the last time for a very long time for me to try BTRFS at all . my data are too important, it is not really faster and in many environments you will have really perofromance troubles with BTRFS (virtualization as exapple)
for zero or small benefit risk data - no thanks
Thanks again for your quick response.
OK, so you are suggesting I move to lvm, or leave things as is, to ext4? The new installer does not give me an option to format ext4 (but I can keep it as is, I guess).
How does one convert from ext4 to lvm? Is there any benefit to moving to lvm?
Thanks very much! Ranjan
Am 20.01.2013 02:00, schrieb Ranjan Maitra:
Thanks again for your quick response.
OK, so you are suggesting I move to lvm, or leave things as is, to ext4? The new installer does not give me an option to format ext4 (but I can keep it as is, I guess).
How does one convert from ext4 to lvm? Is there any benefit to moving to lvm?
you should really read some basic documentations
ext4 is a filesystem btrfs is a filesystem lvm is NOT a filesystem
you have ext4, btrfs, whatever FS ON TOP of LVM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_volume_management
for most private environments there is no real benefit of LVM spread LVM over more than one disk with no RAID under it is simply dumb becasue if ONE of the disks goes down you have a problem
On 20.01.2013, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
F18 appears to give two options for installing from scratch: lvm or btrfs. Which one is better from the point of view of the longer-term.
While btrfs is a filesystem, lvm is not. Therefore, you can't compare them. See e.g. http://www.howtoforge.com/linux_lvm
My current HDDs are ext4s. I switched then because I understood that this was the future.
What's the "future" to others must not neccessarily be the future to you. You decide. EXT4 as filesystem is a good choice, and there are some other good and stable filesystems out there (I've been using XFS exclusively a very long time..).
On Sat, 2013-01-19 at 19:00 -0600, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
I move to lvm, or leave things as is, to ext4?
LVM is a container, if you like. It can span multiple disk drives, so they appear as one huge drive. And it can be expanded across even more drives, if you add them, in the future. That gives you the advantage of what appears to be a huge drive. It gives you the disadvantage that a failure of any drive could result in the total loss of everything on all drives.
If you only have one drive, and if you never intend to try that spanning trick, I recommend that you do not use LVM. It just adds yet another problem to a computer system.
Now, for ext4. It's a filing system. The partitions inside an LVM can use ext4, and the partitions inside a single hard drive partitioned in the traditional way can use ext4. If you're happy with ext4, don't want to try another filing system, stick with it.
If considering another filing system, think about why: Is it faster? Are their other advantages? Are their any advantages over your current one?
And think about why not: Is there any point in changing? Are there disadvantages? Are there any known flaws? Are there recovery tools for dealing with lost, or accidentally deleted data.
Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 20.01.2013 02:00, schrieb Ranjan Maitra:
Thanks again for your quick response.
OK, so you are suggesting I move to lvm, or leave things as is, to ext4? The new installer does not give me an option to format ext4 (but I can keep it as is, I guess).
How does one convert from ext4 to lvm? Is there any benefit to moving to lvm?
you should really read some basic documentations
ext4 is a filesystem btrfs is a filesystem lvm is NOT a filesystem
you have ext4, btrfs, whatever FS ON TOP of LVM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_volume_management
for most private environments there is no real benefit of LVM spread LVM over more than one disk with no RAID under it is simply dumb becasue if ONE of the disks goes down you have a problem
Your point about loss of data is well taken, but having data on any storage without RAID for error recovery is a risk, having data on just one machine is a risk. The admin has to balance cost and benefit, for both hardware and administrative learning curve considered as "cost." The benefit of LVM is being able to easily move data to other physical devices and expand the size of storage. LVM can do RAID by itself, although I have always created arrays with mdadm because I'm most familiar with doing it that way.
Note that the user interface to LVM, bad as it is, is still much easier to master than adding drives to a RAID array and growing filesystems. In my opinion,the fewer commands you need to use the less likely you are to make a mistake.
While there are unusual use cases in which btrfs is significantly faster than ext4, and btrfs provides some capabilities not in ext4, most users will see little benefit from it. The problems btrfs was created to address are not common.
Am 21.01.2013 07:43, schrieb Bill Davidsen:
Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 20.01.2013 02:00, schrieb Ranjan Maitra:
Thanks again for your quick response.
OK, so you are suggesting I move to lvm, or leave things as is, to ext4? The new installer does not give me an option to format ext4 (but I can keep it as is, I guess).
How does one convert from ext4 to lvm? Is there any benefit to moving to lvm?
you should really read some basic documentations
ext4 is a filesystem btrfs is a filesystem lvm is NOT a filesystem
you have ext4, btrfs, whatever FS ON TOP of LVM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_volume_management
for most private environments there is no real benefit of LVM spread LVM over more than one disk with no RAID under it is simply dumb becasue if ONE of the disks goes down you have a problem
Your point about loss of data is well taken, but having data on any storage without RAID for error recovery is a risk, having data on just one machine is a risk. The admin has to balance cost and benefit, for both hardware and administrative learning curve considered as "cost."
but there is a difference if i have only one disk which can go bad and all is away or i have as example 4 disks an dif ONE OF THEM goes bad all is away
-
Bill Davidsen -
Heinz Diehl -
Ranjan Maitra -
Reindl Harald -
Tim