On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 01:27:04AM +0100, Gert van der Knokke wrote: > John Stoffel wrote: > > >Gert> I didn't expect lvm to restore the missing data, I guessed it > >Gert> would just let me access the rest of the data. > > > >At this point, you have to think, how can my filesystem cope with the > >loss of a 60gb chunk of data in the middle (start or end even) of the > >300+ gb of data? There's all sorts of meta-data and true data which > >is now gone, and re-building the filesystem into a consistent state is > >really impossible. > > > Hmm, and so I think LVM still needs a warning label :-) > > I wonder why LVM doesn't work the other way around: > Create filesystems on several disks and then concatenate these to the > outside as one large filesystem. This way if one drive goes bad you can > always individually mount the drives and use the data. > > >If you are looking for a large/cheap/reliable bunch of storage, > >instead of mirroring, you might want to think about RAID5 instead. > > > No, what we're looking for is an 'expandable as needed' filesystem and > this is what LVM pretends to be. No. LVM does in no way "pretend to be a file system". It's an expandable block device. What the filesystem does with that block device is up to it. If a disk fails and you're not using RAID then you restore from backups. -- patrick _______________________________________________ linux-lvm mailing list linux-lvm@sistina.com http://lists.sistina.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/
