| 1 |
On Thursday 07 April 2011 06:20:55 BRM wrote: |
| 2 |
> ----- Original Message ---- |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > From: Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 05:22:41 -0500, Dale wrote: |
| 7 |
> > > I want to do it this way because I don't trust LVM enough to put my |
| 8 |
> > > OS |
| 9 |
> > > on. Just my personal opinion on LVM. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > This doesn't make sense. Your OS can be reinstalled in an hour or two, |
| 12 |
> > your photos etc. are irreplaceable. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Makes perfect sense to me as well. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Having installed LVM - and then removed it due to issues; namely, the fact |
| 17 |
> that one of the hard drives died taking out the whole LVM group, leaving |
| 18 |
> the OS unbootable, and not easily fixable. There was a thread on that |
| 19 |
> (started by me) a while back (over a year). |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> So, perhaps if I had a RAID to underly so I could mirror drives under LVM |
| 22 |
> for recovery I'd move to it again. But otherwise it is just a PITA waiting |
| 23 |
> to happen. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Ben |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Unfortunately, any method that spreads a filesystem over multiple disks can be |
| 28 |
affected if one of those disks dies unless there is some mechanism in place |
| 29 |
that can handle the loss of a disk. |
| 30 |
For that, RAID (with the exception of striping, eg. RAID-0) provides that. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Just out of curiousity, as I never had the need to look into this, I think |
| 33 |
that, in theory, it should be possible to recover data from LVs that were not |
| 34 |
using the failed drive. Is this assumption correct or wrong? |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Joost |
Archives