>On Tue, 2004-03-23 at 03:29, Matthew Daubenspeck wrote: >> Do you think using LVM is a reliable method of sharing home directories? >> I have been reading the lists, and I notice that in a lot of cases, if >> one drive dies, you usually lose a lot of information. Craig Ringer wrote: >That's why you should really only use it on top of redundant storage >like RAID 1 or RAID 5, or in situations where you can afford the risk of >data loss (scratch volumes, hot archives, etc). I agree that RAID 5 is a great idea for important data and is the appropriate layer under LVM for the redundancy that large numbers of home directories demand. >I guess that by its self, LVM could be seen as having many of the same >issues as RAID-0 in terms of data safety - but you're more likely to be >able to do partial recovery with LVM. This probably assumes multiple disks in a single volume group. The following would be appropriate to a single person workstation: Although it reduces the flexibility of LVM, creating a volume group per disk has the advantage that a disk becoming bad loses only the logical volumes that were on that disk. I find that this works great for Sun workstations which have two internal SCA drives. A single SCA drive can be swapped between machines easily since each drive "is" its own volume group. Of course I allocate only a single large partition to a volume group. Sincerely, Ken Fuchs <kfuchs@winternet.com> _______________________________________________ linux-lvm mailing list linux-lvm@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/
