From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] what's different between LVM 2 and LVM 1 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 30 Aug 2002 09:58:24 BST." <20020830085824.GA1090@fib011235813.fsnet.co.uk> References: <20020830085824.GA1090@fib011235813.fsnet.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 From: Pierrick PONS Message-Id: 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: Fri Aug 30 04:25:02 2002 List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-lvm@sistina.com > On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 02:50:03PM +0800, lilha@legend.com.cn wrote: > > I am puzzled what's different between LVM 2 and LVM 1 > > and I can't find any doc or introduction about the LVM2. > > > > who is kind to tell me what is LVM2, > > and why i should use LVM2 replace of lvm1? > > LVM2 is the next version of LVM that has a couple of goals: > > i) A simpler more extensible kernel driver. This driver, called > device-mapper, is already in the -ac series of 2.4 kernels. Hopefully > device-mapper will replace the LVM1 driver completely in 2.[56]. > > ii) Ability to more easily support the new features we want to put in. > ATM we're concentrating on reproducing the functionality of LVM1, > though a couple of new features (eg. writeable/fast snapshots) have > crept in. > just a stupid question : Why does LVM2 was not a version of lvm so that we just had to upgrade LVM ? If LVM2 is just an upgrade of LVM1, why couldn't you continue with lvm-xxxxx ? It should have been less confusing and easier to upgrade. Sorry if it is abolutely stupid. I'm using LVM1 and it works fine for me on a debian potato with a 2.4.18 kernel with hardware RAID5 . Thank you for your work. Pierrick