Re: [linux-lvm] Misleading documentation

[Barnaby Claydon <bclaydon volved com>]

Fabien Jakimowicz wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 03:22 +0000, Mark Krenz wrote:
>   
> >   Personally I like it when documentation is kept simple and uses simple
> > examples.  There is nothing worse than when you are trying to learn
> > something and it tells you how to how to intantiate a variable, and then
> > it immediately goes on to show you how to make some complicated reference
> > to it using some code.
> >
> >   I agree with you though, its probably a good idea to steer newcomers
> > in the right direction on disk management and a few notes about doing
> > LVM ontop of RAID being a good idea couldn't hurt.  This is especially
> > so since I've heard three mentions of people using LVM on a server
> > without doing RAID this week alone. :-/
> >     
> We should add something in faq page
> ( http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/lvm2faq.html ), like "i've lost one of
> my hard drive and i can't mount my lv, did i lost everything ?" followed
> by a quick explanation : lvm is NOT faulty tolerant like raid1/5, if you
> lose a PV, you lose every LV which was (even partially) on on it.
>   
<snip>

Not to nit-pick, but when one of my multi-PV LVs experienced a single PV 
failure, I did NOT lose all the data on the LV. The VG was using linear 
spanning, so using the --partial parameter with read-only file-system 
mounting (XFS in my case) I recovered all the data from the LV that 
wasn't physically spanned onto the failed PV.

If this was some sort of miracle and shouldn't have worked, well I 
suppose I'll count my blessings but it seemed perfectly reasonable at 
the time.

:)

-Barnaby