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

Re: [linux-lvm] lvm or lvm2?



>On Tue, 2004-03-23 at 03:29, Matthew Daubenspeck wrote:

>> Do you think using LVM is a reliable method of sharing home directories?
>> I have been reading the lists, and I notice that in a lot of cases, if
>> one drive dies, you usually lose a lot of information.

Craig Ringer wrote:

>That's why you should really only use it on top of redundant storage
>like RAID 1 or RAID 5, or in situations where you can afford the risk of
>data loss (scratch volumes, hot archives, etc). 

I agree that RAID 5 is a great idea for important data and is the
appropriate layer under LVM for the redundancy that large numbers of
home directories demand.

>I guess that by its self, LVM could be seen as having many of the same
>issues as RAID-0 in terms of data safety - but you're more likely to be
>able to do partial recovery with LVM.

This probably assumes multiple disks in a single volume group.  

The following would be appropriate to a single person workstation:

Although it reduces the flexibility of LVM, creating a volume group per
disk has the advantage that a disk becoming bad loses only the logical
volumes that were on that disk.

I find that this works great for Sun workstations which have two
internal SCA drives.  A single SCA drive can be swapped between
machines easily since each drive "is" its own volume group.
Of course I allocate only a single large partition to a volume group.

Sincerely,

Ken Fuchs <kfuchs winternet com>

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