Re: [linux-lvm] What are they talking about?

From: "Anastasios A. Papadopoulos $Tas$" <vze2sjj7@verizon.net>
To: linux-lvm@sistina.com
Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] What are they talking about?
Date: Wed May 21 12:42:01 2003	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <09d001c31fc0$5a5249b0$fc6a6d0a@corp.int.digex.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 20030521170200.VADJ1333.imf40bis.bellsouth.net@tiger2

Now I am really confused.  (Sorry folks, it doesn't take much).

I thought that EVMS was dead.  The EVMS web site says something to the
effect that the new EVMS product will be mostly a front end for (LVM?).  Am
I reading that wrong?

Also in their announcement, the EVMS development group said that Linus etal
decided to include LVM but not EVMS.

Can someone straighten me out, please?

Thanks

----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Freemyer" <freemyer@NorcrossGroup.com>
To: "LVM Mailing list" <linux-lvm@sistina.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 1:06 PM
Subject: [linux-lvm] What are they talking about?

In the article at http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1054003,00.asp

they talk about the 2.6 kernel having a DM, but not a LVM.

What are they trying to say?  What is it they think is missing?

=== Quote from the article

According to Witham, a number of features that the development community
believes are not yet ready to be incorporated into the 2.6 kernel may very
well be pushed to 2.7.

Among these features are support for complete Non-Uniform Memory Access
as well as an EVMS (Enterprise Volume Management System), which deals
with the difficult and controversial issue of volume management, Frye said,
adding that 2.6 would be better than 2.4 in terms of volume management even
without the EVMS.

Oracle Corp. and Red Hat Inc. officials have also previously called for
volume
management. Wim Coekaerts, principal member of Oracle's technical staff, in
Redwood Shores, Calif., said: "We would like Linux to have a Logical Volume
Manager. The 2.6 kernel will have a device manager, but we need an LVM."

Paul Cornier, executive vice president of Red Hat, in Raleigh, N.C., agreed.

"Making a more generic cluster file system is important to us, as is an
industrial-strength Logical Volume Manager," Cornier said. "A distributed
lock
manager completes things. This is functionality that needs to go into the
operating
system but is unlikely to be found in the next [kernel] upgrade."

IBM's Frye said that there's clearly a need for an improved volume
management
system and that Linux is not yet good enough in that regard.
====

Thanks
Greg
--
Greg Freemyer

_______________________________________________
linux-lvm mailing list
linux-lvm@sistina.com
http://lists.sistina.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm
read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/