Re: lvm vs traditional partitioning
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 ?
pd: sorry for my english
On 12/26/06, Roberto C. Sanchez <roberto@connexer.com> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 26, 2006 at 11:00:35AM -0500, Jay Zach wrote:
>
> I've played around with LVM a bit, but not a LOT....
>
> I've often wondered if you have non-raid partitions making up the PV's of the
> LV's, and had a PV fail what would happen....
Generally, that is a Bad Thing(TM).
> Since all the PV's are lumped together, would one just have random data loss
> across the LV? That seems like it would be a pain in the behind to restore
That's pretty much the size of it. A real pain.
> if that was the case.... Has anyone here lost a disk in a volume and can
> answer to that? (of course if one had mirrored disks making up the PV's
> that wouldn't be a concern)
>
As much. You could always have *two* disk failures wipingout the
mirrored pair (I heard about such things happening from manufacturing
defects, e.g., the DeathStar drives from IBM/Hitachi).
> Any insight would be appreciated :)
>
In general, I look at naked LVM as about the same reliability level as
RAID0. The only thing for which I would use such a setup are for data
which can be easily recreated. For example, if you are rendering CG
animations and need *lots* of temporary space in a single volume. The
worst thing that a complete disk failure will cause will be the loss of
a few hours' work, which can be relatively easily recreated.
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFkUnj5SXWIKfIlGQRAvOaAJ9ENTIfdrCQvnv8mRJFaQgfxXhwEgCfSemV
ZHvt7lWkfuxedbcgUv4peg0=
=rw9n
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: