LVM Mirroring failure notification

Corey Edwards tensai at
Tue May 12 10:24:29 MDT 2009

On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 09:48 -0600, Matthew Walker wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2009 9:44 am, Aaron Toponce wrote:
> > Unless you need that extreme redundancy, I would suggest starting over
> > using Linux software RAID beneath LVM. With 6 drives, I would do RAID
> > level 6 with all active in the array. Then, you're utilizing a decent
> > amount of disk space for your 6 drives, and should a drive fail, you'll
> > deprecate to RAID 5, which works well.
> I would do raid 0+1. You waste 3 drives of space, but you get really good redundancy and
> improved performance (theoretically, anyway).

That's my preference as well, in general. I prefer doing RAID1 + LVM but
the idea is the same. I built a nice large array like that using 10
disks for a mail server and the performance was exceptional. In my case
the RAID controller couldn't create a RAID10 of more than 8 disks, so
LVM was the only option. The flexibility to add and remove RAID1 pairs
from the volume group is quite nice. Of course there's all the other
perks of LVM too, such as consistent naming and snapshotting. I'm a
total LVM believer.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : 

More information about the PLUG mailing list