btrfs on lvm, is it a good idea?

memorum · 08-04-2015, 12:19 PM

Hello,
my question is simple, and I hope, in good category.
Is there any point to install linux on btrfs fs, that is on lvm?
I mean, there is additional layer, and a lot of features all in both of them, and even made better in btrfs.
Could you tell me, in what case, you think, that btrfs on lvm is justified?

syg00 · 08-04-2015, 07:01 PM

I keep LVM/device manager away from my btrfs systems. As you say, btrfs does all I need (and better) than LVM. There are also potential conflicts with stripe and stride mismatches when using multiple devices in RAID.

One scenario where it might be useful is if you want LUKS encryption - but that adds yet another layer of emulation.

jefro · 08-04-2015, 10:17 PM

I see a lot of web pages that say to do it. Not sure I'd do it like that but for a long time LVM was used by so many that maybe they just can't change or trust btrfs for those tasks.

Some of the advanced features like higher raid may still be labeled experimental or beta in btrfs so that may be reason.

replica9000 · 08-05-2015, 11:53 AM

I had btrfs on top of lvm on top of luks on my laptop without issues.