On Sun, 2005-05-29 at 07:31, Alexander Dalloz wrote: > > > > > After experimenting with LVM, I felt that it's still got a lot of > > > rough edges. for one, the filesystem size has to be adjusted in addition > > > to the LVM, plus sveral other things, if you are not 100% sure of what > > > you are doing it's easy to trash your system. It's gtting better but > > > still needs work. > > > Indeed, I have the same experience too. I have used software raid > > (Raid0) instead at the end. > > > SK > > And you want to say a RAID0 is what - a safe alternate? You must be > kidding :) RAID0 certainly isn't safer, but RAID1 might be. I have most of my critical data on software mirrored partitions and have made an effort to arrange things so the contents fit on individual drives. This means that not only can any single drive break and be replaced transparently (which you could still do with LVM on raid) but I can take any single drive, put it in a different machine, and run it or recover the data, regardless of what happened to the rest of the original machine and the other drives. With multi-drive LVM partitions this would require salvaging all of the disks, making sure the recovery machine had a somewhat matching software rev, and probably getting the drives to detect in the same order. Does anyone have experience with this scenario? Suppose the motherboard dies in a box with hot-swap carriers and you've got another similar box with some empty slots. How confident are you that you could make the LVM come up alongside one that was already running in the other box? -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
