From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steve Brueggeman Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] Revised petition WAS: LVM in stock kernel!? Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 13:06:19 GMT Message-ID: <37c78c37.50005198@smtp.primenet.com> References: <199908270338.VAA23939@webber.adilger.net> In-Reply-To: <199908270338.VAA23939@webber.adilger.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-linux-lvm Errors-To: owner-linux-lvm List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Linux LVM mailing list Since we're petitioning Linus to include 'current' LVM code, I believe = that we should make it clear what Linux LVM 'currently' supports. Though a = section including future growth would probably be a good idea, since it'd give = Linus a good feeling about future support, and also let him know what direction = this piece of code is going in.=20 Of course, include my name on the petition. steve_brueggeman@notes.seagate.com Steve Brueggeman >Shane writes: >> - Integration with IBM's ADSM backup allows Linux machines to be = backed up >> "snapshot" style by simply syncing volumes and grabbing volume data. > >I would like to learn specifically what this is before we post this list >anywhere. I don't know of any "integration" with ADSM and Linux LVM. I >don't think the current LVM supports mirrored LVs, so there is no = possibility >of a snapshot of a filesystem... > >> - The ability to add a sort of volume log allows almost instant volume >> resyncing while maintaining an active data volume. > >I don't think this is currently possible either with Linux LVM... Let's >stick with what works before we go talking about features that don't >exist yet. > >You can add me as a strong supporter of LVM for Linux. I think any OS >that doesn't have LVM these days is a pain in the a**. > >Cheers, Andreas