On 03/15/2016 01:37 PM, jdd wrote:
Le 15/03/2016 18:04, Anton Aylward a écrit :
On 03/15/2016 11:16 AM, jdd wrote:
ok, so use of subvolumes remove the partition size *problem* of direct partitioning
is this easier than lvm? I don't know
Easier for what?
iy's the question. Is btrfs subvolume easier than lvm. I dunno.
For my purposes, as someone who cares and has the skills, the BtrFS subvolumes became irrelevant a long time ago.
There are many circumstance where you want constraints such as fixed size partitions.
may be, but also many times where this is a problem, and I have seen much more problems than solutions
I've seen other people with problems; I had the problems back in the 1980s myself with SCO UNIX and how to allocate the space of a 20G or 30G drive that needed a RAW partition for the database. It basically wasn't until I dealt with the Veritas Manager, the precursor of LVM, that I overcame this with the whole matter of being able to defer the issue and dynamically resize partitions on running systems. My experience is that inexperience, unwillingness to experiment and determine just what the tools and facilities can and can't do, unwillingness to push them around and learn how thy work, is the root cause of many problems people have with things like, for example, LVM.
Perhaps they don't apply to you or perhaps you don't care or perhaps you can't imagine that it would matter to someone else.
we a speaking of default install, here, everybody can do every thing anyway...
I've seen some people treat the default install as if it was some settings handed down God on Tablets of Stone, transposed to software. This gets back to what I said about letting other people make decisions, run your life for you. Sure, plonk a kid down in a bright red open top sportscar and he'd have a Let's see what this baby can do" attitude, so why no when it comes it a Linux installer. that was my attitude years ago, lets see what this installer can do! Defaults are for chickens.
But if you think LVM is about fixed size partitions then you don't understand LVM. I use LVM specifically because I don't want fixed size partitions ala fdisk.
yes, and it's why I wonder is btrfs subvolumes are better or not. Subvolumes do not need at all fixed partitions, lvm allows easy changing.
Subvolumes have nothing to do with partitioning, they are not analogous to partitioning. There is only one file system. Subvolumes are just a management tool. Think of them as markers on the map. "From here on in this policy applies".
as someone said, when fixing problem each level of difficulty is an obstacle. With lvm it's much more difficult to know how the disk is used (let only because the computer owner do not know this himself), devices names are pretty hard to remember, partitioning needs the correct driver version to be read (and chance is you don't have it), etc. If lwm go through several disks, I simply refuse to try.
None of what you've said except for that last sentence is true. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org