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 ESMTP id iBKGn8r03811 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 2004 11:49:08 -0500 Received: from Trademart-1.ednet.ns.ca (Trademart-1.EDnet.NS.CA [142.227.51.1]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iBKGn6Jb025837 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 2004 11:49:06 -0500 Received: from trademart-2.ednet.ns.ca ([142.227.51.61] helo=[10.227.7.25]) by Trademart-1.ednet.ns.ca with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.43) id 1CgQiY-0007xD-AI for linux-lvm@redhat.com; Mon, 20 Dec 2004 12:49:06 -0400 Message-ID: <41C70281.2070404@ednet.ns.ca> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 12:49:05 -0400 From: Patrick Boutilier MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] LVM strategy: Is One VG Safe? References: In-Reply-To: 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"; format="flowed" To: LVM general discussion and development Maurice Volaski wrote: > I plan to start with a hardware RAID (level 5) of one physical volume > and one volume group. Then create several logical volumes from it and > grow them each as they are needed pulling space from what's not used in > the volume group until all the space in the group eventually utilized. > > Is it reasonable to believe that such an arrangement is stable enough > that if anything were to ever go wrong a with an individual logical > volume that it wouldn't impact the other logical volumes in that same > volume group or the volume group itself? We have used the above setup for years (one VG/many LV on top of hardware RAID 5). It is stable for us.