| 1 |
On Freitag 02 April 2010, meino.cramer@×××.de wrote: |
| 2 |
> Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> [10-04-02 14:08]: |
| 3 |
> > On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 13:04:53 +0200, meino.cramer@×××.de wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > only to be sure to have understood everything correctly: |
| 5 |
> > > Suggestion is to create for example one root partition and a swap |
| 6 |
> > > partion. And I will create on big "rest of the disk"-partition. |
| 7 |
> > > The last one will be subdivided with LVM into portions as needed. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > Yes. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > > Since the last big partition is big due to physical reasons (not for |
| 12 |
> > > logical one): What will happen, if -- for example -- one portion will |
| 13 |
> > > be not unmounted cleanly and while booting/checking fails to recover? |
| 14 |
> > > Are all others damaged/lost? |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > No, because the failure you describe is at the filesystem level. Even the |
| 17 |
> > volume containing that filesystem will retain integrity, only the |
| 18 |
> > filesystem itself will be corrupted. As you have left free space on the |
| 19 |
> > volume group, you can just create a new volume, format it and copy over |
| 20 |
> > everything you can recover from the broken filesystem before deleting it. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Hi Neil, |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> yes, sounds good, very good. |
| 25 |
> Last question: How heavy is the performance impact of such a setup ? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
seriously lvm sounds nice. But it isn't. It easily breaks. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
You want a save setup? Go raid5 or raid6. As a bonus - you can get more space |
| 30 |
if you need it by just adding another disk. And you are not depending on some |
| 31 |
complex stuff to get it working. |
Archives