I understand that LVM and RAID-1 are distinct features but was mainly concerned about how bullet-proof LVM was these days. Specifically, if you end up with a failed drive does LVM ever complicate recovery. I've run into situations were bad blocks would appear on one of the two drives of a RAID-1 mirror and that was tricky enough to recover from. Since I really don't need the functionality of LVM, I'll probably skip again this time. Jack On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 12:02:07PM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 12:49:26 -0500, > Jack Howarth <[email protected]> wrote: > > I've been setting up software RAID-1 configurations > > since Fedora Core 2 with normal partitions instead of > > using LVM. I was wondering what the consensus was about > > using LVM for software RAID partitions? My inclination > > is that, unless one plans on adding additional drives > > to the LVM partitions later, it really only adds another > > layer of code that can break. Thanks in advance for > > any comments. > > They have orthangonal purposes, so unless you are asking if there are bugs > in the block layer devices that support that combination, the question doesn't > make a lot of sense. > > RAID 1 gives you protection against single drive failures. If you want that > feature, then you are going to need it regardless of whether you are using > LVM or not. > > LVM provides a way to manage how space is partitioned (and I think some > other special features like snapshots) and if you need them, RAID 1 (or 5 or 6) > isn't going to help you.