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 (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k7UBtdHY017007 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2006 07:55:39 -0400 Received: from mx12.bbn.com (mx12.bbn.com [128.33.0.81]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k7UBtap2028084 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2006 07:55:36 -0400 Received: from mgillen2.dsl.bbn.com ([128.89.72.74]) by mx12.bbn.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1GIOfJ-0003G3-3q for linux-lvm@redhat.com; Wed, 30 Aug 2006 07:55:29 -0400 Message-ID: <44F57CB0.2060400@mattgillen.net> Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 07:55:28 -0400 From: Matthew Gillen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] Safeguarding LMV data? References: <80d985600608300116q2453135fua378dbf1138daa2d@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <80d985600608300116q2453135fua378dbf1138daa2d@mail.gmail.com> 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: LVM general discussion and development Craig Hagerman wrote: > If I understand things correctly, if one of those drives fails I will > lose all the data spread across both drives. Is this correct? Essentially. > When I > set this up (over a year ago) I guess I kind of assumed that if one > drive failed I could shrink the LV and still have access to the data > on the good drive. I've heard of people that have been able to save data in that situation, but it's sort of black magic, and you never know what exactly you'll be able to recover. From the filesystem's perspective, it's like half your blocks went bad. Filesystems really aren't built to handle those situations gracefully. > I think I have read that the best way to safeguard my data would be to > set up the hard drives as RAID 5 (which would require an additional > drive - minimum 3, right). I didn't consider this when I first set up > the LVM. Why not RAID 1? RAID 5 requires 3 disks of the same size (with the RAID device having the capacity of 2 disks). RAID 1 (mirror) requires two disks of the same size (with the RAID device having the capacity of one disk). > I am wondering if there is anything I can do now to mitigate the > chance of one drive failing and losing all data? I have thought about > buying another drive (say a 400GB), moving the data on there, setting > up LVM with RAID 5 and then moving the data back .... except that the > new drive would be intended to be used in that RAID 5 configuration. I > don't think I have a good enough understanding of either RAID 5 or LVM > and would really appreciate some advice for what I can do. Read the RAID howto first, and figure out what you want to do at the RAID level, taking into consideration how many drives you want to buy, the level of redundancy you need, etc: http://tldp.org/HOWTO/html_single/Software-RAID-HOWTO/ Once you have the specifics of a particular setup, ask again what to do at the LVM layer (include at least how big your existing LV is, and how big your new drive(s) are). Matt