[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [linux-lvm] Misleading documentation



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


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]