Talk:Logical Volume Manager (Linux)

message: If I have several physical disks forming one logical volume, what happens if one of those physical disks breaks?
Do I lose all of my data on that logical volume or just the data that was stored on the broken disk?
Sam
* Your question is not best answered here; try asking on a Linux (or HP-UX) forum or newsgroup or mailing list...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.132.250 (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disk breakage? 

message: I'm confused about this article's statement about journaled filesystems.  The cited article seems to say that LVM merely does not support barriers, which are disabled by ext3 by default anyway.  So, at least according to that source, it does not seem that there is any disadvantage to running LVM with ext3 filesystems, as compared to running normal ext3 filesystems without LVM.  Does anyone know whether this is correct?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.25.3 (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barriers and ext3 

message: The beginning of the article stipulates that LVM is part of the kernel (which, from the minimal research I've done; appears correct) and yet, in the very next paragraph there is a (fairly comprehensive) listing of specific Linux distributions - which would seem redundant, as any Linux (kernel) based operating system (GNU/Linux); can potentially support LVM.
This article as a whole could probably to with a clean up.
203.11.167.3 (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they can potentially support lvm. But having a distribution that was made with lvm support makes using lvm a lot easier. Eeekster (talk) 02:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kernel vs. distribution 

message: Following the link: LVM2 Resource Page to
http://sourceware.org/lvm2/
makes Opera issue a "fraud warning".
"The page you are trying to open has been reported as fraudulent. It will likely attempt to trick you into sharing personal or financial information. Opera Software strongly discourages visiting this page."
:Yes, opera does whine about the page. I don't see anything there that merits the warning. Eeekster (talk) 02:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fraud warning 

message: This article does not cite many sources, in particular claims regarding how LVM2 is shipped with SUSE, LVM2's roots in HP-UX and 'caveats' only site one source. I realize that reliable sources for this kind of thing are sometimes difficult to gather, I am posting this as a marker.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinkertim (talk • contribs) 11:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article lacks proper citations 

message: LVM uses a 32 character string containing digits with uppercase and lowercase letters, per the code at http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/?p=lvm2.git;a=tree;f=lib/uuid;hb=HEAD it looks like it s based purely on a random number generator.  At 62^32=2.27*10^57=2^190 possibilities, this is much larger space than standard UUIDs, and require a different sort of storage than a standard 128 bit UUID.  Drf5n (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-standard [[UUID|UUIDs]] 

message: Under "Common Uses" is states that LVM is capable of creating a single logical volume out of multiple physical volumes, and then compares this to RAID 0 and JBOD. Technically speaking, the latter of which is incorrect, as JBOD does not combine multiple physical volumes into a single logical volume, it just creates a set of disks, each with its own logical volume. Please see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-RAID_drive_architectures
It should be comparing this to SPAN or BIG rather than JBOD.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.119.58 (talk) 02:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The article you linked indicates that "SPAN" as a concept has an overlap with "JBOD" (and implies the author thinks of SPAN as a subset of JBOD) and that reflects my experience as well. From your linked article "Hard drives may be handled independently as separate logical volumes, or they may be combined into a single logical volume using a volume manager like LVM; such volumes are usually called 'spanned'" Given that, I don't think it's entirely inaccurate to saw that it's both "SPAN" and JBOD. The linked article also seems to have some contention going on with it as well. Until they resolve those issues I don't think we can safely cite it as an example of the correct terminology. Bratchley (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hello!  As a contributor to the Non-RAID drive architectures article, I can only emphasize that the distinction between JBOD and SPAN is somewhat mangled, what also applies to JBOD itself.  The term "JBOD" has been coined primarily to describe layouts in which hard disk drives attached to a hardware RAID controller aren't specifically managed by the controller and are passed to the operating system "as-is".  Thus, using JBOD outside that specific scenario is always going to be a little blurred. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 19:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing JBOD and SPAN (BIG)