Restoring LVM after a Hard Drive Failure (no raid) - Redhat

This is a discussion on Restoring LVM after a Hard Drive Failure (no raid) - Redhat ; At the moment, I am running Fedora 8 with 5 physical hard drives (all of different sizes) but *NOT* using LVM. I have a lot of data spread all over the place and it is clear that I need to ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Restoring LVM after a Hard Drive Failure (no raid)

  1. Restoring LVM after a Hard Drive Failure (no raid)

    At the moment, I am running Fedora 8 with 5 physical hard drives (all of
    different sizes) but *NOT* using LVM. I have a lot of data spread all over the
    place and it is clear that I need to (1) back it all up more often and (2) more
    efficiently use the space. So I am setting up a "backup server" using a spare
    machine that will sync up to the main server each night. So I am thinking that
    since the data will be duped anyway now might be a good time to actually think
    about a strategy instead of just flinging drives at the machine every so often.

    In reading about LVM it sounds intriguing, but I can't seem to find out what is
    involved if a physical drive dies within the volume group. Lots of articles
    seem to say you should use raid for redundancy but I pretty much will have a
    mirror with the other machine.

    If you don't use raid and one hard drive out of 5 in the LVM volume group dies,
    is there no way to get the data off of the remaining 4 (ie. does the volume
    group just get "corrupting" and that's it)?

    My plan was to have the /, swap, and other system directories on 1 small (40gb)
    drive outside of the LVM. Then put the other 4 drives (totalling 1.4 TB) into a
    LVM group. The "backup server" would be similar with 1 drive out of the LVM for
    the system, but 3 drives in an LVM group totalling 1.5 TB.

    Wasted space issues aside, is this setting myself up for a major hassle if I
    lose a hard drive (hopefully on only one machine at a time!!!)?

    Can anyone think of a better solution (with pros and cons)?

    Miguel

  2. Re: Restoring LVM after a Hard Drive Failure (no raid)

    phaedrusdijk "at" hotmail "dot" com wrote:
    > At the moment, I am running Fedora 8 with 5 physical hard drives (all of
    > different sizes) but *NOT* using LVM. I have a lot of data spread all over the
    > place and it is clear that I need to (1) back it all up more often and (2) more
    > efficiently use the space. So I am setting up a "backup server" using a spare
    > machine that will sync up to the main server each night. So I am thinking that
    > since the data will be duped anyway now might be a good time to actually think
    > about a strategy instead of just flinging drives at the machine every so often.
    >
    > In reading about LVM it sounds intriguing, but I can't seem to find out what is
    > involved if a physical drive dies within the volume group. Lots of articles
    > seem to say you should use raid for redundancy but I pretty much will have a
    > mirror with the other machine.
    >
    > If you don't use raid and one hard drive out of 5 in the LVM volume group dies,
    > is there no way to get the data off of the remaining 4 (ie. does the volume
    > group just get "corrupting" and that's it)?
    >
    > My plan was to have the /, swap, and other system directories on 1 small (40gb)
    > drive outside of the LVM. Then put the other 4 drives (totalling 1.4 TB) into a
    > LVM group. The "backup server" would be similar with 1 drive out of the LVM for
    > the system, but 3 drives in an LVM group totalling 1.5 TB.
    >
    > Wasted space issues aside, is this setting myself up for a major hassle if I
    > lose a hard drive (hopefully on only one machine at a time!!!)?
    >
    > Can anyone think of a better solution (with pros and cons)?
    >
    > Miguel


    Hey,

    With no RAID, it is just like when you have one drive, and
    you loose it. In an LVM, there is no organization to where your data
    really goes so while you could pull /something/ off of the four disks, I
    wouldn't count on it being anything you would recognize. I typically
    don't use LVM unless I have lots of storage that I need in one container
    that I may have to alter it's size. (DBA's are the reason for LVM....).
    If anything, I normally set up a hardware RAID mirror for sda/sdb
    and either a software/HW RAID $x for the remaining disks. Of course it
    really depends on what you need. For LVM on Linux, I am not certain but
    you may be able to set up a spare disk if one dies... can't remember for
    certain.

    JR.


    --

    Bill will have to take Linux from my cold, dead flippers.

    -Tux.

  3. Re: Restoring LVM after a Hard Drive Failure (no raid)

    phaedrusdijk "at" hotmail "dot" com wrote:
    > At the moment, I am running Fedora 8 with 5 physical hard drives (all of
    > different sizes) but *NOT* using LVM. I have a lot of data spread all over the
    > place and it is clear that I need to (1) back it all up more often and (2) more
    > efficiently use the space. So I am setting up a "backup server" using a spare
    > machine that will sync up to the main server each night. So I am thinking that
    > since the data will be duped anyway now might be a good time to actually think
    > about a strategy instead of just flinging drives at the machine every so often.
    >
    > In reading about LVM it sounds intriguing, but I can't seem to find out what is
    > involved if a physical drive dies within the volume group. Lots of articles
    > seem to say you should use raid for redundancy but I pretty much will have a
    > mirror with the other machine.
    >
    > If you don't use raid and one hard drive out of 5 in the LVM volume group dies,
    > is there no way to get the data off of the remaining 4 (ie. does the volume
    > group just get "corrupting" and that's it)?
    >
    > My plan was to have the /, swap, and other system directories on 1 small (40gb)
    > drive outside of the LVM. Then put the other 4 drives (totalling 1.4 TB) into a
    > LVM group. The "backup server" would be similar with 1 drive out of the LVM for
    > the system, but 3 drives in an LVM group totalling 1.5 TB.
    >
    > Wasted space issues aside, is this setting myself up for a major hassle if I
    > lose a hard drive (hopefully on only one machine at a time!!!)?
    >
    > Can anyone think of a better solution (with pros and cons)?
    >
    > Miguel


    Hey,

    With no RAID, it is just like when you have one drive, and
    you loose it. In an LVM, there is no organization to where your data
    really goes so while you could pull /something/ off of the four disks, I
    wouldn't count on it being anything you would recognize. I typically
    don't use LVM unless I have lots of storage that I need in one container
    that I may have to alter it's size. (DBA's are the reason for LVM....).
    If anything, I normally set up a hardware RAID mirror for sda/sdb
    and either a software/HW RAID $x for the remaining disks. Of course it
    really depends on what you need. For LVM on Linux, I am not certain but
    you may be able to set up a spare disk if one dies... can't remember for
    certain.

    JR.


    --

    Bill will have to take Linux from my cold, dead flippers.

    -Tux.

+ Reply to Thread