[snip] > > Based on what you have said do yourself a favour and don't do LVM. LVM > > is a wonderful idea but it requires that you understand statistics > > related to disk failure and the consequences of that. > > This comment makes no sense to me: in what way does LVM change the risks > associated with disk failure? I can't think of *anything* that is at all > different in that regard.
[snip] > Heh. Aside from the LVM bit, this is almost certainly the best advice the > OP has gotten. (Even LVM may be right; I just don't understand what James > is trying to say the problem is yet. ;) From 2nd year stats (and subject to the ravages of time on my memory): a display array of 10x20 1000hour lamps will have a lamp fail on average every 20 min !! According to Seagate the failure rate of 2 disks is much greater than 2x failure rate of 1 disk http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1090724 Along with all the cute benefits that LVM offer is a much higher disk failure rate. Is the windows-linux convert going to pay attention to needed backup regime? I don't believe it is in the best interest of this user to do kewl rad stuff! James -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
