[mdlug] Completely replacing Windows XP Pro with Linux!

[Aaron Kulkis]

Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
> 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.

Which is why I always keep hardcopy of my partition tables.