On Sunday, 6 January 2019 17:07:35 GMT gevisz wrote: > вс, 6 янв. 2019 г. в 15:57, Peter Humphrey <pe...@prh.myzen.co.uk>: > > On Sunday, 6 January 2019 11:05:10 GMT gevisz wrote: > > > I never used LVM as I believe that it increases the chance of [losing] > > > all the information on hard disks. > > > > Interesting. Would you like to explain why? > > I had once a 40GB HDD failure and I have managed to restore > all the data on it by repeatedly putting it in a fridge what enabled > me to dd its partions for about 10 minutes or so. But in that case > the partitions were relatively small and the disk mounted quick > and easy. Now imagine that have failed a 4TB HDD disk that is > part of much bigger LVM volume. Moreover, suppose that it is > impossible to restore that part of the failed HDD disk that indexes > all that LVM volume...
There's also the probability of corruption of the LVM table on the disk. Arguably a small probability, but nevertheless one additional reference table for things to go wrong, should Murphy and his law have anything to do with it. I also prefer to keep disks with critical data as simple as possible, plan ahead of applying partitioning schemes for particular use case requirements and consequently I do not use LVM. On the other hand, there are use cases where LVM can be invaluable - ill defined or ever changing disk space requirements where over-provisioning of spare space can be expensive. So as with most things in life it is a balancing act. ;-) -- Regards, Mick
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
