[mdlug] Completely replacing Windows XP Pro with Linux!

[Adam Tauno Williams]

On Tue, 2014-07-22 at 09:52 -0400, Jonathan Billings wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:52:18PM -0400, Aaron Kulkis wrote:
> > Until the LVM data gets hosed... then it's a nightmare trying to recover
> > unless you have really been methodical about doing backups.
> > I use LVM in the workplace, *IF* the backups are frequent and shown to
> > be reliable (not always a given).  For home use -- not a chance.
> I'm going to have to disagree (again) about using LVM.  (We seem to
> have this exchange every year or so...)

Yep.  I do not accept any of the below arguments as a valid reason not
to use volume management.

> Good backups is a good idea, no matter what, 

Yep.

> but recovering LVM is not
> as painful as it might have been in the bad old LVM1 days (or with
> other logical volume managers).  Several copies of the configuration
> is stored on the disk, and typically an archive of the configuration
> is stored in /etc/lvm/archive/, if you can get to there.  

I don't care because I would never try, and in 30+ years I have never
tried.  Why would one be in this position?

> The kind of
> situation that leads to "LVM data gets hosed" will just as easily
> overwrite the partition table on a disk,

Exactly.  A trashed system is a trashed system;  if restoring /
rebuilding is not easier then trying to reconnect a bunch of shattered
plumbing then something else has already gone terribly wrong.

> There's many reasons why most distros have moved to using LVM by
> default, and none of them chose it because it's trivial to lose data. 

It is *NOT* trivial to lose data; to lose data - trash your volume
configuration - the administrator must do something very stupid for that
to happen.  Either that or your hardware is crap - in which case it does
not matter if you use LVM or not.