On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 07:27:22PM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote: > > I'd rather deal with a case of the Clap. > > LVM is worse than useless for most installations. It makes
Because it is not designed for reliability, but for flexibility. This is wy it is best to have it ride over a reliability, like RAID. > the entire file system dependent on every drive in the Logical > Volume working. If any drive fails, then the entire FS becomes > corrupt. As you may know, as the number of devices goes up, > the MTBF goes down drastically, and the probability of failure > goes up dramatically. If one has a largish RAID, then LVM makes > sense, but without RAID or some other error correcting ability, > LVM makes the likelihood of a file system failure increase, and In fact it does not make the likelihood increase. The things that make the likelihood of a failure increase are independent of LVM. Now, what LVM often does is contribute to the severity or impact of a failure because of the false sense of security it gives some admins. > makes the likelihood of recovery from it decrease, since the > normal recovery tools won't work. > Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
