[Discuss] Insight about LVM

[blu at nedharvey.com (Edward Ned Harvey)]

> From: discuss-bounces+blu=nedharvey.com at blu.org [mailto:discuss-
> bounces+blu=nedharvey.com at blu.org] On Behalf Of
> markw at mohawksoft.com
> 
> > On 10/22/2011 01:33 AM, markw at mohawksoft.com wrote:
> >> I've got a pretty good feel for the technology and functionality, I
> >> could
> >> write a white paper on how to use it.
> >>
> >> The question I have for this group is this...
> >>
> >> Do you trust it? Is it reliable? is it a viable technology?
> > LVM is the default for enterprise Linux, both RHEL as well as SuSE. I
> > have not heard any issues with LVM. The biggest advantage is that you
> > can resize logical volumes, add new hardware to extend logical volumes.
> > It gives you quite a bit of flexibility over using physical
partitioning.
> 
> I know the advantages. I actually converted my servers to use LVM volumes
> for the VMs and database. Snapshots are the way to go for backing up live
> systems. I have been doing some research into how to accomplish
> differential block level backups from snapshot to snapshot.
> 
> I guess my question was more amorphous. I have a couple potential storage
> applications that could be implemented with LVM as a component. I'm also
> looking into ZFS and Btrfs. I'm not looking for a compare/contrast.
> 
> I'm looking to hear from people using it, things they like, things they
> dislike, oddities they've encountered, etc.

You're looking for things people like/dislike and oddities about LVM, but
not a comparison with ZFS or BTRFS, and not to mention the advantages it
offers.  That's pretty difficult to do.

Yes, LVM is stable and reliable, as it has been for years.
You mentioned snapshots.  I'll say LVM snapshots are garbage, but since you
don't a comparison with ZFS or BTRFS or VSS or WAFL, I'll just drop it at
that.