From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [172.16.48.31]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id i2MJcEj03348 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 14:38:20 -0500 Received: from bucket.localnet (i125-043.nv.iinet.net.au [203.59.125.43]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id i2MJc1WA011207 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 14:38:08 -0500 Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] lvm or lvm2? From: Craig Ringer In-Reply-To: <20040322192910.GA10671@oddprocess.org> References: <20040322192910.GA10671@oddprocess.org> Message-Id: <1079984217.4449.6.camel@albert.localnet> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 03:36:57 +0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: LVM general discussion and development List-Id: LVM general discussion and development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: matt@oddprocess.org, LVM general discussion and development On Tue, 2004-03-23 at 03:29, Matthew Daubenspeck wrote: > Do you think using LVM is a reliable method of sharing home directories? > I have been reading the lists, and I notice that in a lot of cases, if > one drive dies, you usually lose a lot of information. That's why you should really only use it on top of redundant storage like RAID 1 or RAID 5, or in situations where you can afford the risk of data loss (scratch volumes, hot archives, etc). I guess that by its self, LVM could be seen as having many of the same issues as RAID-0 in terms of data safety - but you're more likely to be able to do partial recovery with LVM. I run LVM on a RAID 1 array and a large RAID 5 array, and while I've had disk failures, I've never suffered any data loss because the layer below LVM is properly redundant. Craig Ringer