Dennis G. Wicks wrote:
Quite stable. The only problem is this: the more drives you use, the greater the point of failure is. If you use 5 HDs for an LVM, you have 5 points of failure in which you will loose all your data. HTOH, if you run a raid (1 or 5) you have built in redundancy of one failure allowed before data is lost.Greetings;What do you think of LVM? Is it stable and reliable enough to use for a backup repository?I have several 250GB drives I am thinking of using for backup but administering the assignment of data to drives would be a headache. I am thinking that LVM might solve that by letting me make one big dataspace.Comments? Thanks for all the help, no matter what I ask! TIA! Dennis
What does this mean to you? I would run a raid (not raid0) and run lvm on top of that (assuming you have enough HDs). RAID1 will give you N/2 where N is size of the drive. RAID5 will give you N+N+N.....-N for disk size (you loose one disk worth of storage in raid5).
HTH -- Damon L. Chesser damon@damtek.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/dchesser