|
On 12.04.2019 19:41, Tom Browder wrote:
This post on StackExchange marked as answer [1] is a great source of information about LVM.I've been using Linux for over 20 years, and Debian for over 10, but I've always used conventonal partitions and /etc/fstab definitions. Now that I'm getting a virgin, up-to-date laptop, I am considering ising LVM but want to get the option of expert users: Should I go that route? Every thing I read says I should, but my reluctance in the the past has always been my comfort level with handling disk failures (I've had my share) and recovery of lost data. Note that most of my disk failures have been the computer interface and I have been able to read the "bad" disk from another computer via a USB inteface. I'm leaning toward using LVM but would appreciate any advice from LVM users. Thanks. Best regards, -Tom It was updated a few times by author to correct outdated information. Highly recommended for reading. IMO, LVM is not worth the trouble if you use it for just one disk drive. It will add another layer on top of the usual stack and can greatly complicate the data recovery process on disk drive that has multiple "bad" sectors. When automated process of LVM discovery fails, you end up with disk that has it's data separated in strips, just like is RAID0, but much larger in size. There is still next to none tools available for the purposes of data recovery from LVM. It shares similar problems with "Storage Spaces" and ReFS from Microsoft. [1] https://serverfault.com/questions/279571/lvm-dangers-and-caveats -- With kindest regards, Alexander. ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian - The universal operating system ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://www.debian.org ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ |