Damon L. Chesser wrote:
Dennis G. Wicks wrote:
Greetings;
What do you think of LVM? Is it stable and reliable enough to use for
a backup repository?
I have several 250GB drives I am thinking of using for backup but
administering the assignment of data to drives would be a headache. I
am thinking that LVM might solve that by letting me make one big
dataspace.
Comments?
Thanks for all the help, no matter what I ask!
TIA!
Dennis
Quite stable. The only problem is this: the more drives you use, the
greater the point of failure is. If you use 5 HDs for an LVM, you have
5 points of failure in which you will loose all your data. HTOH, if you
run a raid (1 or 5) you have built in redundancy of one failure allowed
before data is lost.
What does this mean to you? I would run a raid (not raid0) and run lvm
on top of that (assuming you have enough HDs). RAID1 will give you N/2
where N is size of the drive.
RAID5 will give you N+N+N.....-N for disk size (you loose one disk worth
of storage in raid5).
HTH
Speaking of RAID, how is the support for the "new" RAID6 mode?
(RAID6: A large stripe+parity array like RAID5, with the ability to
lose 2 drives at the same time, slightly better when accidents happen,
like the time you are hot-swapping one drive in a homegrown box, and you
manage to knock loose the SATA data cable on another drive while
removing the first one.)
--
Mark Allums
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
