On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 12:43:07PM +0300, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 09:11:27AM +1000, Alex Samad (alex@samad.com.au) wrote: > > > but the marketing brief seems to suggest that if you lose a drive you > > only lose the files that were on there. > > I would take that with a big grain of salt. Marketing briefs > suggesting things without explicitly saying so are generally > not to be taken at face value. > > Unless and until someone either finds an explicit statement > by M$ to that effect or testifies having actually tried that, > I will remain skeptical. > > > with lvm you would lose any lv that has blocks on that drive > > Not necessarily, although recovery of a partially lost lv is > rather painful. somebody else suggested a process on how to fix a missing pv (using /dev/zero) and then fsck'ing thus giving you a mountable partition, but how do you tell which files are valid and which are not ! Can yuo outline a process that allow you to find out which pv a file exists on ? if so then yeah I am guessing you could recover from a missing pv, but otherwise I would say not > And of course raid/mirroring helps - with software raid as > well as with lvm mirroring you can do it even with disks > of different sizes. > -- I've always made it a solemn practice to never drink anything stronger than tequila before breakfast. -- R. Nesson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature