On Monday, 21 February 2011 18:56:22 Jeff Robins wrote: > > Michael Scherer wrote: > > > For a linux system, a lvm logical volume is just another disk. > > I've had issues in the past because Linux considered LVM just one logical > disk and I think the average user would eventually have the same problem as > well. I think moving to LVM as the default will create too many complaints > and support requests in the end. > > A long time ago I had a system with 6 SCSI disks, each 1.2GB. The system > was fairly useless with the single disks, but using LVM I had 1 disk of > reasonable size. I ran the system for about a year with no problems, but > then 1 of the disks failed. Normally this would be a medium inconvenience, > because I would just have to restore the files from that one drive to > another drive. However, with the LVM,
... or RAID0 ... > I lost the ability to read the entire > LVM. VG. > I had to restore the entire system, which was a much bigger pain. I > also could not obtain a disk of the same small size for a reasonable price, > which I was told would make the problem even bigger. Irrelevant for LVM. Only partly relevant for RAID0. > If I had used some redundancy, then I might have been able to restore the > one disk, but I was a novice user and didn't understand the need. I think > that most users who use the defaults and probably novice users, or at least > will be after Mageia takes off. I think LVM support is a must, but I think > making it the default, without also making some redundancy the default, > will cause more problems than it solves. For single-disk systems, there is no difference. For multi-disk systems, whether it would have been any different depends on whether you had a single VG or multiple VGs. But, by the time you talk about 6 disks, we're not talking about a default anymore. Regards, Buchan
