[CentOS] partitions vs. LVs [was: Re: How to upgrade from 5.8 to 6.2]
ken
gebser at mousecar.comSun Jun 24 21:46:52 UTC 2012
- Previous message: [CentOS] partitions vs. LVs [was: Re: How to upgrade from 5.8 to 6.2]
- Next message: [CentOS] Upgrading from 5.7 to 5.8
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 06/24/2012 12:47 PM Keith Roberts wrote: > On Sun, 24 Jun 2012, ken wrote: > *snip* > >> > Yeah, the problem is more than likely in your hardware. I've used it on >> > hundreds of machines and since 1999 and never had a problem traceable to >> > LVM. On the other hand, I've seen a lot of disks go bad. > And what happens then in that situation - do you loose any > more data than you would loose with 'standard' primary and > extended logical partitions, or does using LVM help in > recovering more data from a bad disk? > > Keith Keith, There are a lot of ways for a disk to go bad, so it's not really possible to give an answer. Most people who seriously address this question work on the assumption that it's easier to keep good backups than to try to recover data from a bad disk.
- Previous message: [CentOS] partitions vs. LVs [was: Re: How to upgrade from 5.8 to 6.2]
- Next message: [CentOS] Upgrading from 5.7 to 5.8
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the CentOS mailing list