LVM negates benefits of jounaling filesystems? [was RFE: autofsck]

[max bianco]

On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 4:38 PM, Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com> wrote:
> max bianco wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Chuck Anderson <cra at wpi.edu> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 08:36:31AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>>> journaling filesystem you really shouldn't have any filesystem metadata
>>>> integrity problems on power loss; that is, if you have barriers on
>>>> (which ext3 doesn't by default) and if your storage can pass barriers
>>>> (which lvm doesn't), or if you have drive write cache disabled (which
>>>> hurts performance pretty badly).
>>> I wasn't aware that LVM destroyed the kind of guarantees about
>>> filesystem metadata being written out to disk that jounaling
>>> filesystems rely on?  If so, should we perhaps rethink the decision to
>>> use LVM by default on Fedora installs?
>>>
>>
>> What was the reason for using LVM in the first place. My most recent
>> install I was really tempted to not go with the defaults but because I
>> really don't know much about filesystems, I figured the best thing in
>> that case was stick to the defaults. Now I am reconsidering
>> again...could someone explain the comparative advantages/disadvantages
>> ? Before i do something stupid .
>
> LVM has a lot of advantages with regard to flexibility: you can add a
> disk to a filesystem, for example.  It has a lot of nice features.
>
> Andrew.
>

but there seems to be some question as to data integrity or ability to
recover data in the event of disaster or am i reading too much into
this?


-- 
If opinions were really like assholes we'd each have just one