| 1 |
On Sat, 2009-03-21 at 14:13 -0700, BRM wrote: |
| 2 |
> With all the words of LVM2 going on, I feel it is only appropriate to also mention the risk. |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> On a desktop I had installed LVM2 considering that I did need to upgrade partitions every now and then and my previous solution was add another drive/partition and cross mount - e.g. like done with /usr/local under /usr, which worked fairly well. LVM2 worked great - until one of the drives crashed and I was trying to figure out what was on it. From that pov, volume management is a pain. I did figure out what I had mounted to it - but only after deconstructing the LVM configuration file to match it up with what I had put there. (And no, I had not yet gotten to doing an LVM soft-RAID solution to map a single LVM partition to two drives, which would certainly have helped.) I got my system working by adding a new drive that was not part of the volume group, and removing the old drives from the volume group. Fortunately, I had my volume setup so that they one partition was not made up of non-overlaping partitions on different drives. (e.g. partition A = |
| 5 |
> sda1 + sda2 instead of sda1 + sdb1.) |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> So, unless you are looking to use LVM in a soft-RAID solution between multiple physical drives, not multiple partitions on the same drive, (e.g. partition A = sda1 + sda2, with mirror on sdb1+sdb2), then I would not suggest it as should anything happen, it'll make data recovery that much harder. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Just 2 cents for the pot. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
With or without LVM if you lose a drive then you've lost the data on it. |
| 12 |
LVM does have the capability of assembling a partially damaged volume |
| 13 |
group just not a partially damaged logical volume which, when you think |
| 14 |
about it, makes sense. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
And you can also throw in the standard warning about backing up your |
| 17 |
data. |
Archives