Do all these people you speak of just affect / ? I don't understand the argument.. Yeah - mistakes get made. The really important data is probably not under the / LVM at all... it's in those other filesystems that I guess people don't affect? ;-)
The only argument I'm really hearing is that recovery is harder.. and well, maybe. I've had clobbered non-LVM / disks before... I brought up a recovery system to fix what I could. That's what I did for an LVM / as well.. and since we have hundreds of these buggers they are all set up exactly the same way from an OS point of view and I didn't need the config info to know where things are or which disks might be the issue. (That's why conventions like 100-1FF for Linux OS volumes are nice -- you always know which disks make up an LVM) Anyway - I still say humbug. There's nothing about a non-LVM / that will protect you from people... Scott On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Mark Post <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> On 11/26/2009 at 12:53 PM, Scott Rohling <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I know we've had this discussion before.. but.. I fail to understand why > > everyone seems to find LVM reliable for everything BUT /. I'm promised > it > > will certainly fail - it's just a matter of time. Why?? Why does the > > reliability of LVM suddenly break down when you talk about a particular > > filesystem? I find it illogical. > > It's not illogical at all. People are people and they make mistakes. When > all your configuration information is locked away in an inaccessible LV, it > makes recovery very much harder than it would be otherwise. It's not that > LVM itself is particularly unreliable (although like any software it has > it's bugs), it's the people involved. And I'm not just talking about the > system administrator. There's also the storage admin, the fabric admin, the > storage CE, the person that accidentally tweaked the wrong fiber connector > in the switch, you name it. When you've supported nearly a thousand > physical servers, these lessons get burned into your memory. > > > The few times I've experienced issues with / being an LVM are the very > same > > issues I have with any other filesystem under an LVM .. missing disks, > > changed uuids, etc. > > Exactly. But when you went to fix the problem, was /etc/ available? > Probably. > > > I'm not especially advocating using LVM for / - although I find it has > some > > advantages. > > Given the file system layout I use, I see no advantages at all, only > disadvantages. > > > I'm just asking why it's reliability is so much in question. > > It's not in question, particularly. > > > What is there about / that makes LVM 'sure to fail'? I say humbug to > > that.. > > See above. It's the people involved. (And sometimes just Murphy/Cosmic > radiation/whatever.) > > > Mark Post > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or > visit > http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
