Scott Lamb wrote on 09/19/2006 06:40:43 PM: > On Sep 18, 2006, at 12:37 PM, Mark Krenz wrote: > > LVM != RAID > > > > You should have been doing RAID if you wanted to be able to > > handle the > > failure of one drive. > > This is my biggest beef with LVM - why doesn't *any* of the > documentation point this out? There are very few good reasons to use > LVM without RAID, and "ignorance" certainly isn't among them. I don't > see any mention of RAID or disk failures in the manual pages or in > the HOWTO. Good point. So if the docs make no mention of RAID or fail-over or redundency or spares, what made you assume that LVM had such capabilities???? _______________________________________________ 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/
