Damon L. Chesser wrote:
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! DennisWhat 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
Speaking of RAID, how is the support for the "new" RAID6 mode?(RAID6: A large stripe+parity array like RAID5, with the ability to lose 2 drives at the same time, slightly better when accidents happen, like the time you are hot-swapping one drive in a homegrown box, and you manage to knock loose the SATA data cable on another drive while removing the first one.)
-- Mark Allums