"lost" my LVM volume

Colin Brace cb at lim.nl
Tue Jul 18 11:49:29 UTC 2006

On 7/18/06, Paul Howarth <paul at city-fan.org> wrote:

> On the other hand, if you just have one big logical volume filling the
> volume group, you're going to lose the data from that volume if you lose
> any of the drives.

I see.

> What would you use instead? In what way would that survive the loss of a
> drive? You could use RAID with redundancy but that would cost you capacity.

Well, instead of one big logical volume spread across three drives, I
could dispense with LVM and just store my data in three individual
directories mounted separately. It is not like I have single files
which are so large I absolutely require logical volumes spanning
multiple drives; I just found it convenient to have all these files in
one directory.

In any case, it seems that if I want to continue to use the curent LVM
volume, I will need to run mkfs on it, no? I suppose I will just have
to bite the bullet...

Thanks very much for your helpful explanations.

  Colin Brace

More information about the users mailing list