[PATCH 0 of 10] LVM: mirrored/redundant/duplicate mirror log

[PATCH 0 of 10] LVM: mirrored/redundant/duplicate mirror log

[Jonathan Brassow]

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"?

 brassow

[PATCH 0 of 10] LVM: mirrored/redundant/duplicate mirror log

[Takahiro Yasui]

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?

Thanks,
Taka

[PATCH 0 of 10] LVM: mirrored/redundant/duplicate mirror log

[malahal]

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.

[PATCH 0 of 10] LVM: mirrored/redundant/duplicate mirror log

[Alasdair G Kergon]

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 06:16:22PM -0500, Takahiro Yasui wrote:
> "reduntant" is used such as by "redundant system," and familiar key word

My point is that the log is not redundant.

There are two copies of the log data - one is necessary, the other could be
considered redundant.  But the descriptive term here describes the *entire*
log, only part, not all, of which is "redundant".

Alasdair