Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > In <jwvwsap9oo1.fsf-monnier+gmane.linux.debian.u...@gnu.org>, Stefan Monnier > wrote: >>> What happens if, for whatever reason, just one of the disks is >>> available? >> You lose it all (pretty much). For that reason, it's not recommended, >> unless you have backups elsewhere. > > You don't really lose it all. If the disk is just unavailable, the VG is > just unavailable. Bringing both disks on-line simultaneously will restore > your access to the VG and all its LVs. > > If one disk dies or gets corrupted, you can still recover some of the data > on the other disk. LVs that reside only on the good disk(s) will be > completely safe. LVs that reside only on the bad disk(s) will be entirely > lost.
OP explicitly asked about creating _one_ LV. He also claimed that there is no third disk available for backup or data recovery. I agree with Stefan that for the particular scenario OP describes, LVM may not be the optimum solution. I'd suggest that he'll probably be more comfortable with just two partitions, splitting his media files, so in the end he will know which files he will retain in case of disk failure. The alternative of creating two volumes, each covering one whole disk, renders the concept of LVM pretty much useless. The comfort of administering just one LV, covering both disks carries the risk that most of the data will be useless on failure of one disk and possible data recovery will be difficult to predict. The 'classical' two partition approach at least gives the possibility to save some crucial data to *both* disks. > IMO, LVM is a replacement for partition tables not for RAID or backups. Agreed! Cheers, Johannes -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
