lvm

[Peter Larsen]

On Sun, 2012-03-04 at 22:57 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: 
> 
> Am 04.03.2012 22:20, schrieb Peter Larsen:
> > On Sun, 2012-03-04 at 21:17 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: 
> >> is this a joke?
> > 
> > Nope.
> > 
> >>
> >> you really want to install a OS and put systema nd data on the same
> >> partition? do this if you want but do not tell anybody this is a
> >> smart setup-design!
> > 
> > Have you looked at a Fedora installation since F12? 
> > That's the default setup.
> 
> so what, tehre are many not smart defaults
> that is why "customize layout" exists

Yet the default is there as it's the one configuration that covers the
majority of installations. You're confusing the exceptions with the
rule.

> 
> i can even not imagenien how many people lost their
> data because this dumb defaults after messed up
> their installation and missing knowledge how to
> save their data before

If you override your LVM, sure that'll happen. But who does that?

> nor is it smart to use LVM as default as
> example on a notebook where you never can
> install a additional disk and expand the LVM

Rubbish. I've been using Fedora as my permanent workstation since around
F8. LVM has been a part of most of the installations, and for good
reasons. Adding additional drives, doing backups, doing VM snapshots
etc. are all features founded on LVM. 

There's no overhead with LVM, and it's beats having fixed and static
partitions. It makes absolutely no sense not to use LVM by default. Even
if you only need to change your filesystem setup once, it's well worth
it using volumes instead of physical partitions.

> 
> it only makes additional layers and let pepople
> run in troubles if things running not perfect

Go back and read about LVM. There are no extra "layers". It's using the
same device mapper your partition system is.

> 
> > Your full OS and home and /var and /lib etc. are all on the same
> > LVM physical partition. T
> 
> as said - a dumb dfeault

That's your opinion. I respectfully disagree (see above as to why).

> 
> > he only reason /boot is separate is due to
> > legacy grub didn't support ext3 or 4
> 
> well, and that is why it would be REALLY idiotic to
> say "hey now all supports each FS, we do not need /boot"

We're not longer using legacy grub. Even with F14 we shipped Grub2 (it
may even have been included earlier - not sure). We've had this ability
for a long time now.

> as i installed my systems with a 500 MB /boot there
> was no imagination that ext4 can be relevant in the
> future, but as it was released it was easy to use
> it for system/data

And the fact that we increased the requirement from 200 to 500MB never
caused you issues? I saw lots of people on IRC who were in a jam because
of that - and because /boot was a physical partition expanding it's size
was/is quite a hazzle. It's the perfect reason for using LVM to begin
with - even for /boot.

> believe it or not - history will happen again
> we all do not know about future development

So because of this uncertainty, you want to pick the least flexible
setup as default and "not dumb"? Seems to me, that it should be the
other way around.

> but you can setup your systems with the expierence
> of the past or ignore it and hope all will be fine

I'm not ignoring anything. You seem to be though.

> i chose smater setups and ignoring defaults made
> for "click, next,c lick, next" users

You've yet to explain why it's smarter to be static and unflexible, on
top of not having the availability of snapshot backups and other
features provided by LVM.


-- 
Best Regards
  Peter Larsen

Wise words of the day:
This land is full of trousers!
this land is full of mausers!
	And pussycats to eat them when the sun goes down!
		-- Firesign Theater
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20120304/831b652c/attachment.sig>