Re: Why LVM
On 4/8/24 16:54, Stefan Monnier wrote: If I have a hot-pluggable device (SD card, USB drive, hot-plug SATA/SAS drive and rack, etc.), can I put LVM on it such that when the device is connected to a Debian system with a graphical desktop (I use Xfce) an icon is displayed on the desktop that I can interact with to display the file systems in my file manager (Thunar)? In the past: definitely not. Currently: no idea. I suspect not, because I think the behavior on disconnection is still poor (you want to be extra careful to deactivate all the volumes on the drive *before* removing it, otherwise they tend to linger "for ever"). I guess that's one area where partitions are still significantly better than LVM. Stefan "who doesn't use much hot-plugging of mass storage" Thank you for the clarification. :-) David
Re: Why LVM
> If I have a hot-pluggable device (SD card, USB drive, hot-plug SATA/SAS > drive and rack, etc.), can I put LVM on it such that when the device is > connected to a Debian system with a graphical desktop (I use Xfce) an icon > is displayed on the desktop that I can interact with to display the file > systems in my file manager (Thunar)? In the past: definitely not. Currently: no idea. I suspect not, because I think the behavior on disconnection is still poor (you want to be extra careful to deactivate all the volumes on the drive *before* removing it, otherwise they tend to linger "for ever"). I guess that's one area where partitions are still significantly better than LVM. Stefan "who doesn't use much hot-plugging of mass storage"
Re: Why LVM
On 4/8/24 14:08, Stefan Monnier wrote: David Christensen [2024-04-08 11:28:04] wrote: Why LVM? Personally, I've been using LVM everywhere I can (i.e. everywhere except on my OpenWRT router, tho I've also used LVM there back when my router had an HDD. I also use LVM on my 2GB USB rescue image). To me the question is rather the reverse: why not? I basically see it as a more flexible form of partitioning. Even in the worst cases where I have a single LV volume, I appreciate the fact that it forces me to name things, isolating me from issue linked to predicting the name of the device and the issues that plague UUIDs (the fact they're hard to remember, and that they're a bit too magical/hidden for my taste, so they sometimes change when I don't want them to and vice versa). Stefan If I have a hot-pluggable device (SD card, USB drive, hot-plug SATA/SAS drive and rack, etc.), can I put LVM on it such that when the device is connected to a Debian system with a graphical desktop (I use Xfce) an icon is displayed on the desktop that I can interact with to display the file systems in my file manager (Thunar)? David
Re: Why LVM (was: HDD long-term data storage with ensured integrity)
Am 08.04.2024 um 23:08 schrieb Stefan Monnier: > David Christensen [2024-04-08 11:28:04] wrote: >> Why LVM? > > Personally, I've been using LVM everywhere I can (i.e. everywhere > except on my OpenWRT router, tho I've also used LVM there back when my > router had an HDD. I also use LVM on my 2GB USB rescue image). > > To me the question is rather the reverse: why not? > I basically see it as a more flexible form of partitioning. As an LVM-newbie (never used it before, i am more familar with ZFS), i did already collect quite a bit of misconceptions of mine/design problems with lvm. Therefore i would rather renew the question: Why? Just one example: In order to be able to use thin snapshots on my root partition, i did every thing i could, to have it inside a thinpool... until i noticed some weird problems booting from it (attributed to grub), so i setup a /boot outside, but the problems stayed (due to lvm's limitations). I came to use it to gain some flexibility (although it is an experiment) and found myself setting up zfs for its data integrity + flexibility, just to have a quality backup of the lvm-volume(s) on a zfs pool. > > Even in the worst cases where I have a single LV volume, I appreciate > the fact that it forces me to name things, isolating me from issue > linked to predicting the name of the device and the issues that plague > UUIDs (the fact they're hard to remember, and that they're a bit too > magical/hidden for my taste, so they sometimes change when I don't want > them to and vice versa). Even GPT brings you the chance to name hings (like part_label), only it does not force you. But i have been using that for 10+ years as a routine. DdB
Why LVM (was: HDD long-term data storage with ensured integrity)
David Christensen [2024-04-08 11:28:04] wrote: > Why LVM? Personally, I've been using LVM everywhere I can (i.e. everywhere except on my OpenWRT router, tho I've also used LVM there back when my router had an HDD. I also use LVM on my 2GB USB rescue image). To me the question is rather the reverse: why not? I basically see it as a more flexible form of partitioning. Even in the worst cases where I have a single LV volume, I appreciate the fact that it forces me to name things, isolating me from issue linked to predicting the name of the device and the issues that plague UUIDs (the fact they're hard to remember, and that they're a bit too magical/hidden for my taste, so they sometimes change when I don't want them to and vice versa). Stefan
