I'll second this. I've had all my data on LVM2 for months w/out problems; I've started moving production machines over to lvm2 w/out mishap (other than redhat's broken init system, but that's not lvm's fault :). I only use basic (linear) volume management; no snapshotting, striping, etc. Also note that I'm still using beta2 (w/ 2.4.18-ac3). On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 03:18:23PM +0100, Joe Thornber wrote: > > On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 02:16:44PM +0200, Anders Widman wrote: > > > > How stable is LVM 2 > > The releases tend to be very stable, cvs obviously is a little less > so. The core functionality (ie. simple LVs) hasn't changed for months > - current development is focusing on pvmove and the new metadata > format. > > The snapshot facility was completed recently (including writeable > snapshots). Judging from the bug reports on the list they seem to be > more stable than 1.1rc2, as well as being faster (see > http://people.sistina.com/~thornber/snap_performance.html for a pretty > graph). > > Personally I've had all my data on LVM2 since November without mishap. > [...] > > - Joe > > _______________________________________________ > linux-lvm mailing list > linux-lvm@sistina.com > http://lists.sistina.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm > read the LVM HOW-TO at http://www.sistina.com/lvm/Pages/howto.html -- <dilinger> people fear what they don't understand <zinx> that is not true <zinx> most people fear what they don't understand, and the rest get killed by those people _______________________________________________ linux-lvm mailing list linux-lvm@sistina.com http://lists.sistina.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm read the LVM HOW-TO at http://www.sistina.com/lvm/Pages/howto.html
