On Tue, 2006-01-10 at 11:27 -0800, Jeff Lasman wrote:
> On Monday 09 January 2006 08:49 pm, Sudev Barar wrote:
>
> > However
> > people from my LUG have been using it and claim this to be rock
> > steady...
>
> Never used it. Our backup systems use multiple 250G drives (our next
> backup server will use multipe 400G drives. We use multiple homeX
> partitions, and we manage what backs up where so this works for us.
>
> My recollection is that if any drive in an LVM fails the whole LVM
> fails.
>
LVM doesn't fail .. but hard drives do. If a hard drive failed that was
part of the LVM, you would lose all that info, true. That is why one
should use a CRC type RAID (1, 1+0, 5) under LVM ... (or LVM on top of
RAID) :)
Then you can replace the failed drive and keep going.
> If that's true, then I wouldn't ever use it as it would increase the
> failure rate.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20060110/8a223ea8/attachment.bin
