From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LlJK2-0005Ln-Nk for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 22 Mar 2009 08:46:22 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 17D13E07C9; Sun, 22 Mar 2009 08:46:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ew0-f163.google.com (mail-ew0-f163.google.com [209.85.219.163]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF1C8E07C9 for ; Sun, 22 Mar 2009 08:46:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ewy7 with SMTP id 7so995194ewy.34 for ; Sun, 22 Mar 2009 01:46:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:subject:date :user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id; bh=xWPyCCcWZp+mdqBVhIiUJOzpDlXYRVm49YYZGUUkDb8=; b=ODz87ok03RMLOr9o2sbaOQntK+333vO8Pd0SwR+gmxcY47fYVHl20lv2eaeEUfM/ab 8qMjO11Vf+VbVVdQlR+HBXdJ3JxjETAZfzesDziRcRm4F5+0gzDRAZrFnEXDz0Cjh1qY pgJ+AK7mKWisauvwoHDRnv8t29w1cs03t+Zx8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :message-id; b=WxvGOgNO6XL2oVkN22qGgAycTOPX6UUzK2AO+aDd5G0Xd4609Dpbh2lJw3LeXhaHSO hf1HmCdzH5Lv7zCJNLIU34RQyQ2Bx76ZZF2bpv/lLoPLYGBgqssTGjNO5PCXy+QSZi06 rZbc9MgKYkMOSFllvAxtZKIJxAGB+jpZHlo0g= Received: by 10.210.45.17 with SMTP id s17mr4369082ebs.74.1237711580177; Sun, 22 Mar 2009 01:46:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nazgul.localnet (196-210-153-139-rrdg-esr-2.dynamic.isadsl.co.za [196.210.153.139]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 5sm4301069eyh.21.2009.03.22.01.46.19 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 22 Mar 2009 01:46:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Alan McKinnon To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: extending /usr partition... Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 10:44:51 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.11.1 (Linux/2.6.28-gentoo-r3; KDE/4.2.1; x86_64; ; ) References: <49C52C76.4030609@gmail.com> <1237689982.6499.18.camel@blackwidow.nbk> <200903220736.32002.francesco.talamona@know.eu> In-Reply-To: <200903220736.32002.francesco.talamona@know.eu> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200903221044.51600.alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> X-Archives-Salt: 987e7ea8-154e-4c95-bbec-d64a43718d2d X-Archives-Hash: 2e7e6ac115eb8f9a4da5cd4670a98d58 On Sunday 22 March 2009 08:36:31 Francesco Talamona wrote: > > With or without LVM if you lose a drive then you've lost the data on > > it. LVM does have the capability of assembling a partially damaged > > volume group just not a partially damaged logical volume which, when > > you think about it, makes sense. > > > > And you can also throw in the standard warning about backing up your > > data. > > The point is that LVM adds an extra layer of complexity. Apparently you have not considered the enormous complexity inside the drive itself. The added complexity of LVM is tiny in comparison to what goes on there. LVM adds flexibility at the cost of one more thing to think about. You should already be performing backups and have redundancy plans (keeping in mind that it is a sheer miracle of modern science that the drive even works at all) For the occasional case where LVM does fail you. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com