From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bill Davidsen Subject: Re: why partition arrays? Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 19:31:12 -0400 Message-ID: <453EA240.7000407@tmr.com> References: <20061021062648.23c0bd7a@30_bodo.rupinet> <453A232E.8050401@idgmail.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <453A232E.8050401@idgmail.se> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Henrik Holst Cc: Bodo Thiesen , linux-raid mailing list , Ken Walker List-Id: linux-raid.ids Henrik Holst wrote: >Bodo Thiesen wrote: > > >>Ken Walker wrote: >> >> >> >>>Is LVM stable, or can it cause more problems than separate raids on a array. >>> >>> > >[description of street smart raid setup] > >(The same function could probably be achieved with logical partitions >and ordinary software raid levels.) > > > >>So, now decide for your own, if you consider LVM stable - I would ;) >> >>Regards, Bodo >> >> > >Have you lost any disc (i.e. "physical volumes") since February? Or lost >the meta-data? > >I would not recommend anyone to use LVM if they are less than experts on >Linux systems. Setting up a LVM system is easy: administrating and >salvaging the same, was much more work. (I used it ~3 years ago) > My read on LVM is that (a) it's one more thing for the admin to learn, (b) because it's seldom used the admin will be working from documentation if it has a problem, and (c) there is no bug-free software, therefore the use of LVM on top of RAID will be less reliable than a RAID-only solution. I can't quantify that, the net effect may be too small to measure. However, the cost and chance of a finger check from (a) and (b) are significant. -- bill davidsen CTO TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979