Re: [gentoo-user] Firefox, downloading files and odd behavior.

[Dale]

gevisz wrote:
> вс, 6 янв. 2019 г. в 15:57, Peter Humphrey <peter@××××××××××××.uk>:
>> On Sunday, 6 January 2019 11:05:10 GMT gevisz wrote:
>>
>>> I never used LVM as I believe that it increases the chance of [losing]
>>> all the information on hard disks.
>> Interesting. Would you like to explain why?
> I had once a 40GB HDD failure and I have managed to restore
> all the data on it by repeatedly putting it in a fridge what enabled
> me to dd its partions for about 10 minutes or so. But in that case
> the partitions were relatively small and the disk mounted quick
> and easy. Now imagine that have failed a 4TB HDD disk that is
> part of much bigger LVM volume. Moreover, suppose that it is
> impossible to restore that part of the failed HDD disk that indexes
> all that LVM volume...
>
>

The thing to remember tho, the drive failed.  That is why you had the
problem.  That isn't the fault of LVM.  That is a defective drive.  From
what I've read, you can have a drive fail, remove that drive and lose
the data from it but keep what is on other drives.  If you have all your
files on a single drive with no LVM and that drives fails suddenly, what
is different?  The important part, monitoring your drives and at the
first sign of problems, replace the drive.  That is true whether you use
LVM or not.  Right? 

I might add, long before I started using LVM, I've had drives to fail
and either had to backup real quick or lose data.  While LVM can cause a
problem, I suspect it is rare if managed properly.  For me, and many
others, it adds many benefits to managing data.  Just recently, my home
partition was starting to fill up.  It was made up of two 3TB drives.  I
replaced one of the 3TB drives with a 6TB drive.  Because I use LVM, it
was painless and easy.  If I hadn't been using LVM, like in the past, it
would have been much harder to do.  I might add, I would have had to
replace with larger drives, which also cost a good bit more. 

Even from my simple setup, LVM adds more benefits to managing data and
drives than it does risk.  The biggest thing, placing blame where it
lies.  Blaming LVM for a drive dying is placing the blame on something
that wasn't the root of the problem.  The dying drive was the problem,
using LVM or not. 

Back to Firefox, I recently did a emerge -e world with no change.  It
still does it on occasion.  So, it's not some weird quirk where
something needs to be rebuilt after a upgrade.  Still a annoying
problem.  Thinking on that firefox-bin package next.  :/

Dale

:-)  :-)