openstack team mailing list archive

[Pádraig Brady <P@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 02/10/2013 02:38 AM, Robert Collins wrote:
> On 10 February 2013 03:27, Davide Guerri <davide.guerri@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Brady, thanks for the infos and for the bugzilla link.
> >
> > I made some tests and some some other researches about potential performance penalties of LVM. These seem not to be noticeable especially with recent linux versions. (please see for instance [1]).
> >
> > Now I'm even more curious about the choice of canonical: there must be a good reason for using such "rough" (pass me the term) filesystem resize technique over a more clean and practical lvm resize.
>
> LVM is strictly more complexity: you still have to resize the block
> device, and resize the filesystem metadata on top of it.

More complex but more flexible in when/how the resize of the device is done.
Whether that flexibility is needed is another question,
but I suppose supporting LVM would support more standard
cloud images where LVM is enabled by default.

cheers,
Pádraig.