I never said LVM would do data recovery or provide Data Integrity - thats the job of the soft-RAID - though even that won't prevent PEBKAC errors (e.g. delete file).
And LVM adds more than a 'little' complexity. If I had just lost the drive, I would have known exactly what I had lost as I would have known exactly what partitions were lost and what they mapped to by simply looking at /etc/fstab. However, with LVM, I had to deconstruct the VG to figure out what partitions were lost and see if any remaining partitions were only partially there - and do it all by hand at that. That's more than a slight inconvenience, and takes a lot more time. I'm not blaming LVM for a "user error". I am, however, pointing out a weakness of using VGs. Ben ----- Original Message ---- From: Alan McKinnon <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 4:42:12 AM Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] extending /usr partition... On Saturday 21 March 2009 23:13:49 BRM wrote: > So, unless you are looking to use LVM in a soft-RAID solution between > multiple physical drives, not multiple partitions on the same drive, (e.g. > partition A = sda1 + sda2, with mirror on sdb1+sdb2), then I would not > suggest it as should anything happen, it'll make data recovery that much > harder. LVM does not and should not provide data integrity features. You lost a drive. The data on it goes away. What did you expect would happen? That the data on it would magically reconstruct itself? In a situation like that, losing a drive with LVM is only slightly more inconvenient (one or two more steps) than losing the same drive without LVM (which is horribly inconvenient by itself). Please don't blame LVM for what is actually a user error. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
