On Tue, 2006-01-10 at 11:27 -0800, Jeff Lasman wrote: > On Monday 09 January 2006 08:49 pm, Sudev Barar wrote: > > > However > > people from my LUG have been using it and claim this to be rock > > steady... > > Never used it. Our backup systems use multiple 250G drives (our next > backup server will use multipe 400G drives. We use multiple homeX > partitions, and we manage what backs up where so this works for us. > > My recollection is that if any drive in an LVM fails the whole LVM > fails. > LVM doesn't fail .. but hard drives do. If a hard drive failed that was part of the LVM, you would lose all that info, true. That is why one should use a CRC type RAID (1, 1+0, 5) under LVM ... (or LVM on top of RAID) :) Then you can replace the failed drive and keep going. > If that's true, then I wouldn't ever use it as it would increase the > failure rate. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20060110/8a223ea8/attachment-0005.sig>