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 1Q7pJU-0005Q5-TZ for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 07 Apr 2011 13:31:57 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8B5221C01B; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 13:30:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtpq3.tb.mail.iss.as9143.net (smtpq3.tb.mail.iss.as9143.net [212.54.42.166]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 526F41C01B for ; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 13:30:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [212.54.42.137] (helo=smtp6.tb.mail.iss.as9143.net) by smtpq3.tb.mail.iss.as9143.net with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q7pI8-0007Yv-NL for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 07 Apr 2011 15:30:32 +0200 Received: from 5353c7ed.cm-6-4d.dynamic.ziggo.nl ([83.83.199.237] helo=data.antarean.org) by smtp6.tb.mail.iss.as9143.net with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q7pI4-0003Ak-FW for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 07 Apr 2011 15:30:28 +0200 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by data.antarean.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B2D327AC for ; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 15:30:40 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at antarean.org Received: from data.antarean.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (data.antarean.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ErQbUfovq+Uw for ; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 15:30:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from eve.localnet (eve.lan.antarean.org [10.20.13.50]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by data.antarean.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD7BB1390 for ; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 15:30:39 +0200 (CEST) From: Joost Roeleveld To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] LVM for data drives but not the OS Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 15:30:27 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/4.6 beta4 (Linux/2.6.36-gentoo-r5; KDE/4.6.2; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <612030.66569.qm@web39301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <4D9D9071.2050504@gmail.com> <20110407121905.7ba6ddd7@digimed.co.uk> <612030.66569.qm@web39301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> 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-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: <20110407133040.2B2D327AC@data.antarean.org> X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner-ID: 1Q7pI4-0003Ak-FW X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner-SpamCheck: geen spam, SpamAssassin (niet cached, score=-0.928, vereist 5, BAYES_00 -1.90, RDNS_DYNAMIC 0.98, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD -0.01) X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner-From: joost@antarean.org X-Spam-Status: No X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 0f5d96cba36b99045b54901faf216075 On Thursday 07 April 2011 06:20:55 BRM wrote: > ----- Original Message ---- > > > From: Neil Bothwick > > > > On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 05:22:41 -0500, Dale wrote: > > > I want to do it this way because I don't trust LVM enough to put my > > > OS > > > on. Just my personal opinion on LVM. > > > > This doesn't make sense. Your OS can be reinstalled in an hour or two, > > your photos etc. are irreplaceable. > > Makes perfect sense to me as well. > > Having installed LVM - and then removed it due to issues; namely, the fact > that one of the hard drives died taking out the whole LVM group, leaving > the OS unbootable, and not easily fixable. There was a thread on that > (started by me) a while back (over a year). > > So, perhaps if I had a RAID to underly so I could mirror drives under LVM > for recovery I'd move to it again. But otherwise it is just a PITA waiting > to happen. > > Ben Unfortunately, any method that spreads a filesystem over multiple disks can be affected if one of those disks dies unless there is some mechanism in place that can handle the loss of a disk. For that, RAID (with the exception of striping, eg. RAID-0) provides that. Just out of curiousity, as I never had the need to look into this, I think that, in theory, it should be possible to recover data from LVs that were not using the failed drive. Is this assumption correct or wrong? -- Joost