| 1 |
On Saturday 21 March 2009 23:13:49 BRM wrote: |
| 2 |
> So, unless you are looking to use LVM in a soft-RAID solution between |
| 3 |
> multiple physical drives, not multiple partitions on the same drive, (e.g. |
| 4 |
> partition A = sda1 + sda2, with mirror on sdb1+sdb2), then I would not |
| 5 |
> suggest it as should anything happen, it'll make data recovery that much |
| 6 |
> harder. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
LVM does not and should not provide data integrity features. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
You lost a drive. The data on it goes away. What did you expect would happen? |
| 11 |
That the data on it would magically reconstruct itself? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
In a situation like that, losing a drive with LVM is only slightly more |
| 14 |
inconvenient (one or two more steps) than losing the same drive without LVM |
| 15 |
(which is horribly inconvenient by itself). |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Please don't blame LVM for what is actually a user error. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives