1 |
I never said LVM would do data recovery or provide Data Integrity - thats the job of the soft-RAID - though even that won't prevent PEBKAC errors (e.g. delete file). |
2 |
|
3 |
And LVM adds more than a 'little' complexity. |
4 |
|
5 |
If I had just lost the drive, I would have known exactly what I had lost as I would have known exactly what partitions were lost and what they mapped to by simply looking at /etc/fstab. |
6 |
|
7 |
However, with LVM, I had to deconstruct the VG to figure out what partitions were lost and see if any remaining partitions were only partially there - and do it all by hand at that. That's more than a slight inconvenience, and takes a lot more time. |
8 |
|
9 |
I'm not blaming LVM for a "user error". I am, however, pointing out a weakness of using VGs. |
10 |
|
11 |
Ben |
12 |
|
13 |
|
14 |
|
15 |
----- Original Message ---- |
16 |
From: Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> |
17 |
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o |
18 |
Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 4:42:12 AM |
19 |
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] extending /usr partition... |
20 |
|
21 |
On Saturday 21 March 2009 23:13:49 BRM wrote: |
22 |
> So, unless you are looking to use LVM in a soft-RAID solution between |
23 |
> multiple physical drives, not multiple partitions on the same drive, (e.g. |
24 |
> partition A = sda1 + sda2, with mirror on sdb1+sdb2), then I would not |
25 |
> suggest it as should anything happen, it'll make data recovery that much |
26 |
> harder. |
27 |
|
28 |
LVM does not and should not provide data integrity features. |
29 |
|
30 |
You lost a drive. The data on it goes away. What did you expect would happen? |
31 |
That the data on it would magically reconstruct itself? |
32 |
|
33 |
In a situation like that, losing a drive with LVM is only slightly more |
34 |
inconvenient (one or two more steps) than losing the same drive without LVM |
35 |
(which is horribly inconvenient by itself). |
36 |
|
37 |
Please don't blame LVM for what is actually a user error. |
38 |
|
39 |
-- |
40 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |