LVM not fit for default

[Christopher Rutherford]

Personally I agree with Andy in what he's said before on the part of  
LVM.


First of all I have experienced the same "no help hell" with lvm when  
it crashes. (not if, when) I had FC3 installed on my Compaq R3000  
Series notebook, default settings, except for package options. Ran  
that for about three weeks. I reinstall testing out new distros quite  
a lot, so I don't worry about backing up the entire system, and  
something happened with the system, the kernel panicked  when it  
couldn't find a root FS. Same problem as andy.

Basically All I'm trying to say is that yes it fails sometime, no it  
is a cool thing to have, but either give us some tools on default  
install/rescue disc to combat the issue, or take it out unless the  
system detects a RAID array.

Thanks guys,

Chris



On Dec 23, 2006, at 8:24 AM, Andy Green wrote:

> Callum Lerwick wrote:
>
>>> When LVM is inflicted on to situations that cannot benefit from  
>>> it, the end result is you made something more fragile for no  
>>> gain: that can't be right.
>> Every PV keeps duplicate copies of the metadata by default. You can
>> optionally make it store three. Two at the start, one at the end. And
>> every PV in a VG has a copy of the metadata as well. So with two PVs
>> that's four copies of the metadata by default, and optionally 6.
>> ... And backing up your LVM metadata to your /boot partition isn't  
>> a bad
>> idea either. As well as an offline backup.
>> So I have 11 copies of my LVM metadata. That seems rather  
>> redundant to
>> me.
>
> Sounds impressive, but the LVM that was damaged here was not  
> visible nor mountable in Fedora, although the filesystem behind it  
> was mostly intact and mounted okay when I had a copy of it without  
> the LVM stuff in front of it.  Googling at the time didn't bring up  
> anything about how to use these proposed copied of "metadata" nor  
> was anything done about them or mentioned about them by the LVM  
> stuff in Fedora, nor have I heard about LVM metadata before today.   
> All the damaged LVM header had for me was to hide my mostly intact  
> filesystem from being fsck'd or mounted.
>
> Further, you are full of care to have 11 copies of something you  
> don't even need in, say, a laptop usage case, in case it breaks  
> (because if it does break, you experience the truth of what I  
> previously related about not being able to get at your  
> filesystem).  This looks like a pointless and dangerous burden to  
> place on someone who is getting nothing from having LVM there in  
> the first place.  LVM on raid can make sense, in other common usage  
> cases it is only a net risk.
>
> -Andy
>
> -- 
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list