All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Clausen <clausen@gnu.org>
To: Steve Pratt <slpratt@us.ibm.com>
Cc: lvm-devel@sistina.com, Jim McDonald <Jim@mcdee.net>,
	Andreas Dilger <adilger@turbolabs.com>,
	linux-lvm@sistina.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	evms-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Evms-devel] Re: [linux-lvm] Re: [lvm-devel] [ANNOUNCE] LVM reimplementation ready for beta testing
Date: Thu Jan 31 15:19:03 2002	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020201081816.B27865@gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <OFBCE93B66.F7B9C14E-ON85256B52.006B8AB3@raleigh.ibm.com>; from slpratt@us.ibm.com on Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 01:52:29PM -0600

On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 01:52:29PM -0600, Steve Pratt wrote:
> Joe Thornber wrote:
> >On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 10:03:40PM +0000, Jim McDonald wrote:
> >> Also, does/where does this fit in with EVMS?
> 
> >EVMS differs from us in that they seem to be trying to move the whole
> >application into the kernel,
> 
> No, not really.  We only put in the kernel the things that make sense to be
> in the kernel, discovery logic, ioctl support, I/O path.  All configuration
> is handled in user space.

The notion of "volume group" and "physical volume", etc. does
not exist in the device mapper.

It is really much lower-level.

As it is, it could be used for partitioning as well, with a single
LOC changed.  In fact, I imagine it's a 100 LOC or so in libparted to
get partprobe to use it.  Then we could retire all partition code
from the kernel :)

> > whereas we've taken the opposite route
> >and stripped down the kernel side to just provide services.
> 
> Then why does snapshot.c in device mapper have a read_metadata function
> which populates the exception table from on disk metadata?  Seems like you
> agree with us that having metadata knowledge in the kernel is a GOOD thing.

It's good to *support* reading metadata, but better to not require it.

> Since device_mapper does not support in kernel discovery, and EVMS relies
> on this, it would be very difficult to change EVMS to use device_mapper.

Why?  Just because device_mapper itself doesn't support discovery
doesn't mean you can't do the discovery for it, and setup the
devices in-kernel.

I think a bigger issue will be the difference in interface for
EVMS stuff, like all the plugin ioctls... it would be great if
you could:
* decouple the evms runtime (kernel code) from the evms
engine (userland).  Something like libparted's PedArchitecture
would be nice.
* get everyone in the linux community to agree on some standard
ioctl's that provide an interface for everything that evms
(and everyone else) needs.

How hard is this to do?

Andrew

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andrew Clausen <clausen@gnu.org>
To: Steve Pratt <slpratt@us.ibm.com>
Cc: lvm-devel@sistina.com, Jim McDonald <Jim@mcdee.net>,
	Andreas Dilger <adilger@turbolabs.com>,
	linux-lvm@sistina.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	evms-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Evms-devel] Re: [linux-lvm] Re: [lvm-devel] [ANNOUNCE] LVM reimplementation ready for beta testing
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 08:18:16 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020201081816.B27865@gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <OFBCE93B66.F7B9C14E-ON85256B52.006B8AB3@raleigh.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <OFBCE93B66.F7B9C14E-ON85256B52.006B8AB3@raleigh.ibm.com>; from slpratt@us.ibm.com on Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 01:52:29PM -0600

On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 01:52:29PM -0600, Steve Pratt wrote:
> Joe Thornber wrote:
> >On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 10:03:40PM +0000, Jim McDonald wrote:
> >> Also, does/where does this fit in with EVMS?
> 
> >EVMS differs from us in that they seem to be trying to move the whole
> >application into the kernel,
> 
> No, not really.  We only put in the kernel the things that make sense to be
> in the kernel, discovery logic, ioctl support, I/O path.  All configuration
> is handled in user space.

The notion of "volume group" and "physical volume", etc. does
not exist in the device mapper.

It is really much lower-level.

As it is, it could be used for partitioning as well, with a single
LOC changed.  In fact, I imagine it's a 100 LOC or so in libparted to
get partprobe to use it.  Then we could retire all partition code
from the kernel :)

> > whereas we've taken the opposite route
> >and stripped down the kernel side to just provide services.
> 
> Then why does snapshot.c in device mapper have a read_metadata function
> which populates the exception table from on disk metadata?  Seems like you
> agree with us that having metadata knowledge in the kernel is a GOOD thing.

It's good to *support* reading metadata, but better to not require it.

> Since device_mapper does not support in kernel discovery, and EVMS relies
> on this, it would be very difficult to change EVMS to use device_mapper.

Why?  Just because device_mapper itself doesn't support discovery
doesn't mean you can't do the discovery for it, and setup the
devices in-kernel.

I think a bigger issue will be the difference in interface for
EVMS stuff, like all the plugin ioctls... it would be great if
you could:
* decouple the evms runtime (kernel code) from the evms
engine (userland).  Something like libparted's PedArchitecture
would be nice.
* get everyone in the linux community to agree on some standard
ioctl's that provide an interface for everything that evms
(and everyone else) needs.

How hard is this to do?

Andrew

  parent reply	other threads:[~2002-01-31 15:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 66+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-01-31 13:54 [linux-lvm] Re: [lvm-devel] [ANNOUNCE] LVM reimplementation ready for beta testing Steve Pratt
2002-01-31 19:52 ` Steve Pratt
2002-01-31 12:52 ` Joe Thornber
2002-02-01  3:47   ` Joe Thornber
2002-02-01  3:55   ` [Evms-devel] " Arjan van de Ven
2002-02-01  9:55     ` Arjan van de Ven
2002-01-31 13:09     ` Joe Thornber
2002-02-01  4:04       ` Joe Thornber
2002-02-01  4:13       ` [linux-lvm] " Arjan van de Ven
2002-02-01 10:12         ` Arjan van de Ven
2002-01-31 13:35         ` Joe Thornber
2002-02-01  4:31           ` [linux-lvm] " Joe Thornber
2002-02-01  5:06         ` [linux-lvm] Re: [Evms-devel] " Stephen C. Tweedie
2002-02-01 11:05           ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2002-02-01  8:32         ` [linux-lvm] " Alan Cox
2002-02-01 14:44           ` Alan Cox
2002-02-01  8:59           ` [linux-lvm] Re: [Evms-devel] " Stephen C. Tweedie
2002-02-01 14:58             ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2002-02-01 16:01   ` [evms-devel] [linux-lvm] " Kevin Corry
2002-02-01 21:59     ` Kevin Corry
2002-01-31 21:51     ` Joe Thornber
2002-02-03  6:22       ` Joe Thornber
2002-02-01 17:17     ` Alan Cox
2002-02-01 23:30       ` Alan Cox
2002-02-02  7:40     ` Andrew Clausen
2002-02-02 13:39       ` Andrew Clausen
2002-02-02 13:30       ` Alan Cox
2002-02-02 19:42         ` Alan Cox
2002-01-31 14:05 ` [linux-lvm] Re: [lvm-devel] [ANNOUNCE] LVM reimplementationre ady " Jeff Layton
2002-02-01  3:29   ` Heinz J . Mauelshagen
2002-02-01  9:43     ` Jeff Layton
2002-02-05  8:04     ` James Hawtin
2002-02-05  8:09       ` Patrick Caulfield
2002-02-05 11:13       ` Jesus Manuel NAVARRO LOPEZ
2002-02-05 12:28         ` [linux-lvm] (OT) Backups (was Re: LVM reimplementationre ady for beta testing...) Chad C. Walstrom
2002-02-06 13:13       ` [linux-lvm] Backup costs (was: LVM reimplementationre) Benjamin Scott
2002-02-06 13:39         ` Daniel Whicker
2002-02-06 13:46           ` James Mello
2002-02-06 14:35             ` Anders Widman
2002-02-07  3:01               ` Jesus Manuel NAVARRO LOPEZ
2002-02-07  3:17                 ` Petro
2002-02-07  4:34                   ` Jesus Manuel NAVARRO LOPEZ
2002-02-07  7:19                     ` Petro
2002-02-07  7:54                       ` Jesus Manuel NAVARRO LOPEZ
2002-02-07  3:55               ` Dieter Stueken
2002-02-06 13:46         ` Andreas Dilger
2002-02-06 13:48         ` Theo Van Dinter
2002-02-06 15:45           ` Austin Gonyou
2002-02-06 13:51         ` Petro
2002-02-06 13:52         ` Kirby C. Bohling
2002-02-06 13:55         ` Jeff Layton
2002-02-06 14:03           ` James Mello
2002-02-06 20:03             ` Jeff Layton
2002-02-06 20:08               ` James Mello
2002-02-06 20:11                 ` Jeff Layton
2002-02-07  3:10                   ` Jesus Manuel NAVARRO LOPEZ
2002-02-07  4:53                     ` Jeff Layton
2002-02-07  5:31                       ` James Hawtin
2002-02-07 17:05                         ` Wolfgang Weisselberg
2002-02-08 20:04                           ` James Hawtin
2002-02-07  3:03           ` Jesus Manuel NAVARRO LOPEZ
2002-02-07  3:17             ` Petro
2002-02-07  4:15               ` Jesus Manuel NAVARRO LOPEZ
2002-02-12  1:00             ` Marc MERLIN
2002-01-31 15:19 ` Andrew Clausen [this message]
2002-01-31 21:18   ` [Evms-devel] Re: [linux-lvm] Re: [lvm-devel] [ANNOUNCE] LVM reimplementation ready for beta testing Andrew Clausen

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20020201081816.B27865@gnu.org \
    --to=clausen@gnu.org \
    --cc=Jim@mcdee.net \
    --cc=adilger@turbolabs.com \
    --cc=evms-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-lvm@sistina.com \
    --cc=lvm-devel@sistina.com \
    --cc=slpratt@us.ibm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.