On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 11:06:38AM -0400, E0x wrote: > i asking it because i was thinking in use lvm in desktop setup , and i can > live with a harddisk lose and the data on it , but not with all data lost for a desktop setup, using lvm over several small disks is essentially the same thing as using one large disk with several partitions on it. If one of the disks fail, you probably lose it all. That said, it can still be advantageous to use lvm in this context because of the flexibility down the road -- if you need to adjust the sizes of your partitions, you can do so easily. there is no other advantage and in fact there may be disadvantages because the additional number of disks increases the odds of encountering a failure. A > > pd: i have some small HD > > On 12/29/06, Roberto C. Sanchez <roberto@connexer.com> wrote: > > > >On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 10:50:53AM -0400, E0x wrote: > >> a question about lvm , if i have 3 harddisk in a lvm setup for save > >data , > >> and dont have any raid setup , just lvm for make a big virtual HD , now > >on > >> of the 3 HD goes damage i can start with the other 2 left and only > >missing > >> the data that was copy in the 3 HD area ? > >> > >That is only if you are very lucky. When you create a volume group or a > >logical volume, you can specify which physical volumes it should use for > >those, but that sort of defeats the purpose of LVM, which should handle > >those sorts of things for you transparently. > > > >Without RAID, you are really relying only on luck to keep your data > >safe. Do yourself a favor setup a RAID5 and run your LVM over that. > > > >Regards, > > > >-Roberto > > > >-- > >Roberto C. Sanchez > >http://people.connexer.com/~roberto > >http://www.connexer.com > > > > > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > >Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) > > > >iD8DBQFFlS3p1snWssAFC08RAo8aAKCB3Dzb5rwAFVyg8enUuFtxIOG3dgCeO8Jd > >LgdZi47TffFxzOB6YLQz8Po= > >=4ZzG > >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > > >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature