On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 19:42 -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: > On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 10:37:35AM -0500, Default User wrote: > > Hi! > > > > After installing fresh Etch with encrypted lvm (all except /boot), per > > non-expert install, I am reconsidering whether lvm is a good idea. It > > works fine - now - but what if it stops working? > > > > The only partition that seems to be accessible from a sarge system on > > the same machine is the /boot partition. If Etch decides to misbehave, > > how would I be able to access my data? Or is this a case of "you do > > back up your data every day, don't you?" > > > > I really do like the ability to resize my partitions as needed (the > > layout that seemed fine upon install can really look stupid 6 months > > later). But not at the price of my data. > > > > And does encryption of lvm partitions unnecessarily complicate matters, > > especially recovery? Would just an encrypted swap partition only be > > better? > > > > As always, it depends :) > > What is the threat that you are trying to avoid. Personally, if nothing > else, I like swap encrypted (random key, no need for boot up pass > phrase), with /tmp on tmpfs. > > As for accessing an LVM setup that 'stops working', it depends on why it > stopped working. The Etch installer CD has a good rescue mode that can > access the LVM stuff and help with fixes to common problems. > > This, too, requires you to look at the over-all threat. If you have a > concern about drive failure, then LVM alone isn't what you want; you > want LVM over software raid. > > In the absence of a drive failure, what can make LVM 'stop working'? > Some people have reported problems with device renaming (eg sda1 to > sde1). Someone who has solved that problem can tell you how to avoid it > in the first place. Since I have my system LVs on raid1, the md mapper > checks all disks it finds for the md config block; it doesn't rely on > drive names; LVM then just looks for md0. > > So try rephrasing the question. Tell us what your threat concerns are. > > Doug. > >
intended use: standard home system, single user, not mission critical (except that to everyone, their own data is always "mission critical"). nothing exotic or fancy. do really need lvm? if i have to ask, then the answer is, "probably not". my concern was that a partition that seems spacious originally, can over time become cramped, while another loafs with unused space. and no one can precisely predict future needs. further, i plan to switch to testing after the chaos dies down, and want to run that at least until lenny becomes the next stable. so i am trying to think long term. and re-installing every 6 months would really get old fast. i could just have one / partiton (plus a swap partition). That's simple, flexible, and low maintenance. no worrying about data outgrowing partition sizes. but the OpenBSD FAQ makes a compelling case for multiple partitions, at least separate /, /tmp, /var, /usr, and /home (as well as an ENCRYPTED swap partition). and that is one of the default partitioning choices in the Debian installer. note: I am not trying to start an OS flame war. I just mention it for what it's worth. a fresh install is a rare opportunity to do things right, so I try not to squander it. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
