On Thursday 07 April 2011 06:20:55 BRM wrote: > ----- Original Message ---- > > > From: Neil Bothwick <[email protected]> > > > > On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 05:22:41 -0500, Dale wrote: > > > I want to do it this way because I don't trust LVM enough to put my > > > OS > > > on. Just my personal opinion on LVM. > > > > This doesn't make sense. Your OS can be reinstalled in an hour or two, > > your photos etc. are irreplaceable. > > Makes perfect sense to me as well. > > Having installed LVM - and then removed it due to issues; namely, the fact > that one of the hard drives died taking out the whole LVM group, leaving > the OS unbootable, and not easily fixable. There was a thread on that > (started by me) a while back (over a year). > > So, perhaps if I had a RAID to underly so I could mirror drives under LVM > for recovery I'd move to it again. But otherwise it is just a PITA waiting > to happen. > > Ben
Unfortunately, any method that spreads a filesystem over multiple disks can be affected if one of those disks dies unless there is some mechanism in place that can handle the loss of a disk. For that, RAID (with the exception of striping, eg. RAID-0) provides that. Just out of curiousity, as I never had the need to look into this, I think that, in theory, it should be possible to recover data from LVs that were not using the failed drive. Is this assumption correct or wrong? -- Joost
