From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: malahal@us.ibm.com Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 15:28:00 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 0 of 10] LVM: mirrored/redundant/duplicate mirror log In-Reply-To: <4B578EC6.30104@redhat.com> References: <1263954062.22044.9.camel@hydrogen.msp.redhat.com> <4B578EC6.30104@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20100120232800.GA30276@us.ibm.com> List-Id: To: lvm-devel@redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Takahiro Yasui [tyasui at redhat.com] wrote: > On 01/19/10 21:21, Jonathan Brassow wrote: > > I found a bug in the previous patches that were disrupting the workings > > of 'lvconvert --repair'. I was not properly grabbing the first item of > > a list (and checking for NULL). > > > > I am also having some mysterious trouble running the testsuite. I am > > getting different results between identical runs. I'm not sure if I > > have some old dmeventd running or what... > > > > Also, people are unhappy with "redundant" as the name of the log type. > > Other suggestions? "mirrored"? "duplicated"? > > "reduntant" is used such as by "redundant system," and familiar key word > to me. Otherwise, how about "dual-disk"? It will work for two disks. > Or "multi-disk" for more than two disks? I like 'mirrored'. If not 'mirrored', I would go with 'multidisk' Thanks, Malahal.