upvote

points

by holowoodman3 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby Kim_Bruning1 hours ago|
next
[-]
Stop using LVM. Use ZFS!

(ZFS might be described as the love child of lvm and btrfs, 'cept ZFS got there first)

( Very briefly: you hand ZFS a stack of disks (in mirrors or raidz groups, for redundancy) and it makes a zpool. Then you carve the pool into datasets as needed. Each dataset looks like an ordinary directory and takes only the space its files actually use, so you never guess partition sizes again. And each one can have its own compression, snapshot schedule, quota, encryption, and send/receive backups, etc etc etc. )

reply
upvoteby holowoodman1 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
ZFS is overrated and mostly a hobbyist/enthusiast thing.

Performance of zvol is worse than for LVM logical volumes. Last I've looked, zvol for swap is just asking for trouble, up to and including deadlocks. ZFS filesystems do have weird edge cases and incompatibilities, e.g. around free space reporting, quota and the like. And support with software vendors e.g. for enterprise distributions or backup software is spotty at best.

reply
upvoteby jenders1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
>> ZFS is overrated and mostly a hobbyist/enthusiast thing.

Not true at all.. but most large object storage redundancy has moved to the application layer. There are still workloads that are a great fit but I agree OpenZFS is currently not well suited as a general purpose FS.

reply
upvoteby jenders1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Not a btrfs user but OpenZFS u til recently didn’t even support O_DIRECT and may still duplicate page cache in arc. It’s not well suited as a general purpose FS where you can’t anticipate the workload, like on a desktop.
reply
upvoteby jenders1 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
How often are you needing to change partition geometry after install, on a server?
reply
upvoteby holowoodman1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Depends. Some customers do run a lot of "pets, not cattle" servers, and those can get a few extra hard disks if space runs out. Some security guidelines prescribe separate volumes/filesystems for e.g. /home or /var/log, so log spam doesn't kill the whole system as easily. But of course, this means that sometimes the initial sizes aren't right and you need to extend something. In those cases, which happen a few times per year, not using LVM would be a huge problem.

But even for the "frequently reinstalled cattle"-usecase, LVM has benefits, e.g. snapshots for backups, debugging and forensics.

reply