From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kevin Corry Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] What are they talking about? References: <20030521204843.ZNFH1333.imf40bis.bellsouth.net@tiger2> In-Reply-To: <20030521204843.ZNFH1333.imf40bis.bellsouth.net@tiger2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200305211603.39641.kevcorry@us.ibm.com> Sender: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Errors-To: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Reply-To: linux-lvm@sistina.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed May 21 16:12:02 2003 List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: linux-lvm@sistina.com, Greg Freemyer , "Anastasios A. Papadopoulos (Tas)" Cc: EVMS On Wednesday 21 May 2003 15:53, Greg Freemyer wrote: > Kevin, > > I understand how LVM2, DM, and EVMS are architected. > > I still have no idea what the article is talking about. > > Are you saying that the referenced sources just don't understand how it all > works and that the "industrial-strength Logical Volume Manager" they want > is achievable via the current DM implementation in combination with > appropriate high quality user-space tools? Yes, that would be my opinion. DM provides all of the infrastructure that the kernel requires. (It can be further enhanced by adding sub-modules ("targets") to provide new ways to map devices). Then it's up to the user-space tools to figure out how to best use this infrastructure. > That certainly agrees with what I thought and why I was so confused by the > article. I was quite confused by the article as well. :) -- Kevin Corry kevcorry@us.ibm.com http://evms.sourceforge.net/