Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #207385 > unrolled thread

New dual-boot laptop with two SSD drives: should I use LVM (and I have no experience with it)?

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  New dual-boot laptop with two SSD drives: should I use LVM (and I  have no experience with it)? Tom Browder <tom.browder@gmail.com> - 2019-04-12 16:50 +0200
    Re: New dual-boot laptop with two SSD drives: should I use LVM (and I  have no experience with it)? "Alexander V. Makartsev" <avbetev@gmail.com> - 2019-04-12 21:30 +0200
    Re: New dual-boot laptop with two SSD drives: should I use LVM (and  I have no experience with it)? Thomas D Dial <tdial@acm.org> - 2019-04-12 23:10 +0200
      Re: New dual-boot laptop with two SSD drives: should I use LVM (and I  have no experience with it)? Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2019-04-13 08:20 +0200
        Re: New dual-boot laptop with two SSD drives: should I use LVM (and  I have no experience with it)? Thomas D Dial <tdial@acm.org> - 2019-04-14 03:40 +0200

#207385 — New dual-boot laptop with two SSD drives: should I use LVM (and I have no experience with it)?

I've been using Linux for over 20 years, and Debian for over 10, but
I've always used conventonal partitions and /etc/fstab definitions.

Now that I'm getting a virgin, up-to-date laptop, I am considering
ising LVM but want to get the option of expert users: Should I go that
route?

Every thing I read says I should, but my reluctance in the the past
has always been my comfort level with handling disk failures (I've had
my share) and recovery of lost data. Note that most of my disk
failures have been the computer interface and I have been able to read
the "bad" disk from another computer via a USB inteface.

I'm leaning toward using LVM but would appreciate any advice from LVM users.

Thanks.

Best regards,

-Tom

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#207398

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 12.04.2019 19:41, Tom Browder wrote:
> I've been using Linux for over 20 years, and Debian for over 10, but
> I've always used conventonal partitions and /etc/fstab definitions.
>
> Now that I'm getting a virgin, up-to-date laptop, I am considering
> ising LVM but want to get the option of expert users: Should I go that
> route?
>
> Every thing I read says I should, but my reluctance in the the past
> has always been my comfort level with handling disk failures (I've had
> my share) and recovery of lost data. Note that most of my disk
> failures have been the computer interface and I have been able to read
> the "bad" disk from another computer via a USB inteface.
>
> I'm leaning toward using LVM but would appreciate any advice from LVM users.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Best regards,
>
> -Tom
>
This post on StackExchange marked as answer [1] is a great source of
information about LVM.
It was updated a few times by author to correct outdated information.
Highly recommended for reading.

IMO, LVM is not worth the trouble if you use it for just one disk drive.
It will add another layer on top of the usual stack and can greatly
complicate the data recovery process on disk drive that has multiple
"bad" sectors.
When automated process of LVM discovery fails, you end up with disk that
has it's data separated in strips, just like is RAID0, but much larger
in size.
There is still next to none tools available for the purposes of data
recovery from LVM.
It shares similar problems with "Storage Spaces" and ReFS from Microsoft.


[1] https://serverfault.com/questions/279571/lvm-dangers-and-caveats

-- 
With kindest regards, Alexander.

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ 
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian - The universal operating system
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://www.debian.org
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#207403 — Re: New dual-boot laptop with two SSD drives: should I use LVM (and I have no experience with it)?

On Fri, 2019-04-12 at 09:41 -0500, Tom Browder wrote:
> I've been using Linux for over 20 years, and Debian for over 10, but
> I've always used conventonal partitions and /etc/fstab definitions.
> 
> Now that I'm getting a virgin, up-to-date laptop, I am considering
> ising LVM but want to get the option of expert users: Should I go that
> route?

I would strongly recommend LVM as an option. I have used LVM on Linux -
and Debian - for as long as it has been available, and for some years
earlier on HP-UX.

As far as I know, it is no more likely to have failures than any other
disk layout, data recovery after failure is no harder. The only real
additional consideration is the need for the recovery machine and
software to understand enough about LVM, and any other Linux based
system can easily be used for that even if it does not intrinsically use
LVM.

In terms of management, it is a major advance over physical partitioning
for the file systems and, depending on particular file system
characteristics, allows you to get out of space problems without down
time in many cases (online resizing is available for jfs, xfs, I think
for ext2/3/4, and possibly others).

My recommendation is to use it unless you choose to use ZFS.

Regards,
Tom Dial

> 
> Every thing I read says I should, but my reluctance in the the past
> has always been my comfort level with handling disk failures (I've had
> my share) and recovery of lost data. Note that most of my disk
> failures have been the computer interface and I have been able to read
> the "bad" disk from another computer via a USB inteface.
> 
> I'm leaning toward using LVM but would appreciate any advice from LVM
> users.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> -Tom

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#207421

Le 12/04/2019 à 22:46, Thomas D Dial a écrit :
> 
> In terms of management, it is a major advance over physical partitioning
> for the file systems and, depending on particular file system
> characteristics, allows you to get out of space problems without down
> time in many cases (online resizing is available for jfs, xfs, I think
> for ext2/3/4, and possibly others).

XFS and ext* can be grown online. Ext* can be reduced offline only. XFS 
cannot be reduced. Btrfs can be grown and reduced online. I don't t know 
about JFS.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#207437 — Re: New dual-boot laptop with two SSD drives: should I use LVM (and I have no experience with it)?

On Sat, 2019-04-13 at 08:18 +0200, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> Le 12/04/2019 à 22:46, Thomas D Dial a écrit :
> > In terms of management, it is a major advance over physical
> > partitioning
> > for the file systems and, depending on particular file system
> > characteristics, allows you to get out of space problems without
> > down
> > time in many cases (online resizing is available for jfs, xfs, I
> > think
> > for ext2/3/4, and possibly others).
> 
> XFS and ext* can be grown online. Ext* can be reduced offline only.
> XFS 
> cannot be reduced. Btrfs can be grown and reduced online. I don't t
> know 
> about JFS.

I ought to have specified "increase" or "growth" rather than "resizing,"
never having had occasion to reduce a volume. I also was unaware of the
situation with Btrfs.

JFS can be grown while mounted and in use, but as far as I know cannot
be reduced in size except offline.

Regards,
Tom Dial

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web