1 |
On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 17:01:49 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> When you use only LVM for this and nothing else, you have a high risk of |
4 |
> losing everything if one disk fails. Why? Because LVM decides itself |
5 |
> which extent it will put data on. Maybe a whole file is on one disk, |
6 |
> maybe it's spread across two, because the software is designed so that |
7 |
> you don't have to be concerned with that. The only thing that LVM does |
8 |
> is expand your storage space as a single volume and make it easier to |
9 |
> shuffle things around without having to backup/repartition/restore. |
10 |
|
11 |
An alternative is to create a new volume group on the new disk and mounts |
12 |
PVs at various points in your home directory. That way you get the extra |
13 |
space and much of the flexibility without the risk of a failure on a |
14 |
single drive taking out data on both. However, if you are concerned about |
15 |
data loss, you should be using RAID t a minimum, preferably with an error |
16 |
detecting filesystem. |
17 |
|
18 |
> Personally, I like the ZFS approach and do it all in software, catching |
19 |
> errors that RAID misses. |
20 |
|
21 |
The same is also possible with BTRFS, including built in RAID. RAID5 in |
22 |
btrfs is expermiental, but its RAID1 is like RAID5 in some ways, such as |
23 |
giving the capacity of n-1 disks and tolerating a single disk failure. |
24 |
|
25 |
|
26 |
-- |
27 |
Neil Bothwick |
28 |
|
29 |
PC DOS Error #04: Out of disk space. Delete Windows? (Y)es (H)ell yes! |