3 ms·
> It's extremely aggravating how most file systems can't create a pool of storage out of many drives. Some would argue that is the job of the volume manager, n
by bityard 6y ago
> It's extremely aggravating how most file systems can't create a pool of storage out of many drives.
Some would argue that is the job of the volume manager, not the filesystem. On Linux it's LVM2, FreeBSD has vinum, for example.
- matheusmoreira 6y agoI would argue that a volume manager is just one of many parts of a good file system. Managing physical devices at the file system level has advantages: the file system can balance its data automatically in the background. Linux LVM can't do that.
- geerlingguy 6y agoI think this gets into the more philosophical part of the debate like with systemd, where it seems like it could be argued that the separation is better—or not—depending on your needs. And for my own needs, I typically favor the security of not throwing too much complexity on top of my storage system (if it would be impossible for me to recover something without relying on a ton of magic I can't fully understand, I'd rather not use it in production).
- throw0101a 6y ago> Some would argue that is the job of the volume manager, not the filesystem. ZFS is both at the same time. That is why there is the zpool command and the zfs command. While tight-coupling is sometimes bad, in this instance it is useful: * https://web.archive.org/web/20070508214221/http://blogs.sun.com/bonwick/entry/rampant_layering_violation https://web.archive.org/web/20070508214221/http://blogs.sun....