On 7/18/06, Paul Howarth <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On the other hand, if you just have one big logical volume filling the volume group, you're going to lose the data from that volume if you lose any of the drives.
I see.
What would you use instead? In what way would that survive the loss of a drive? You could use RAID with redundancy but that would cost you capacity.
Well, instead of one big logical volume spread across three drives, I could dispense with LVM and just store my data in three individual directories mounted separately. It is not like I have single files which are so large I absolutely require logical volumes spanning multiple drives; I just found it convenient to have all these files in one directory. In any case, it seems that if I want to continue to use the curent LVM volume, I will need to run mkfs on it, no? I suppose I will just have to bite the bullet... Thanks very much for your helpful explanations. -- Colin Brace Amsterdam
