Teak Billard wrote: > In my getting wise period I read that the problem with volume groups is > that if one hard drive fails, the entire volume group is finished. That > to me is extremely dangerous. Am I right to be concerned? If one hard disk fails, all data on THAT disk has gone. As long as you have several small LV which completely fit on a single disk, they are not lost, if some other disk fails. The advantage of using LVM instead of plain partitions is, that the LVs have real names instead of ugly names like "/dev/sdb3", they may be resized and they may be moved easily between different disks, even while in use! If you use LVM to bundle several disks to get bigger LVs which spread over several disks, you depend on the reliability of each disk. But this is the price you have to pay for the plus of flexibility. You may feel saver, to separate both disk by using separate LVs for each. So if one disk fails, you saved one half of your data. So is this only half as worse to loose only one half of your data? If you work with individual disks and partitions, the risk of accidentally deleting or formatting the wrong disk or partition is much higher than with LVM, where your "partitions" have expressive names. Also the LVM commands prevent you from accidentally performing destructive actions. If your data is important, you have to make backups anyway. If you worry about your data, you should buy reliable disks or use a raid5 setup. Dieter _______________________________________________ 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/
