linux-raid.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>
To: Steven Dake <sdake@mvista.com>
Cc: Joel Becker <Joel.Becker@oracle.com>,
	Neil Brown <neilb@cse.unsw.edu.au>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RFC - new raid superblock layout for md driver
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 15:38:29 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20021121203829.GH14063@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3DDD3AB6.2010105@mvista.com>

On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 12:57:42PM -0700, Steven Dake wrote:
> Doug,
> 
> EVMS integrates all of this stuff together into one cohesive peice of 
> technology.
> 
> But I agree, LVM should be modified to support RAID 1 and RAID 5, or MD 
> should be modified to support volume management.  Since RAID 1 and RAID 
> 5 are easier to implement, LVM is probably the best place to put all 
> this stuff.

Yep.  I tend to agree there.  A little work to make device mapping modular
in LVM, and a little work to make the md modules plug into LVM, and you
could be done.  All that would be left then is adding the right stuff into
the user space tools.  Basically, what irks me about the current situation
is that right now in the Red Hat installer, if I want LVM features I have
to create one type of object with a disk, and if I want reasonable
software RAID I have to create another type of object with partitions.  
That shouldn't be the case, I should just create an LVM logical volume,
assign physical disks to it, and then additionally assign the redundancy
or performance layout I want (IMNSHO) :-)


-- 
  Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>     919-754-3700 x44233
         Red Hat, Inc. 
         1801 Varsity Dr.
         Raleigh, NC 27606
  

  reply	other threads:[~2002-11-21 20:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 51+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-11-20  4:09 RFC - new raid superblock layout for md driver Neil Brown
2002-11-20 10:03 ` Anton Altaparmakov
2002-11-20 23:02   ` Neil Brown
2002-11-22  0:08   ` Kenneth D. Merry
2002-12-09  3:52     ` Neil Brown
2002-12-09 23:50       ` large await discrepancies Joe Pruett
2002-12-10 15:59         ` Joe Pruett
2002-12-12 15:30           ` Joe Pruett
2002-12-10  6:28       ` RFC - new raid superblock layout for md driver Kenneth D. Merry
2002-12-11  0:07         ` Neil Brown
2002-11-20 13:58 ` Bill Rugolsky Jr.
2002-11-20 23:17   ` Neil Brown
2002-11-20 14:09 ` Alan Cox
2002-11-20 23:11   ` Neil Brown
2002-11-21  0:30     ` Alan Cox
2002-11-21  0:10       ` John Adams
2002-11-21  0:30     ` Alan Cox
2002-11-20 16:03 ` Joel Becker
2002-11-20 23:31   ` Neil Brown
2002-11-21  1:46     ` Doug Ledford
2002-11-21 19:34       ` Joel Becker
2002-11-21 19:54         ` Doug Ledford
2002-11-21 19:57           ` Steven Dake
2002-11-21 20:38             ` Doug Ledford [this message]
2002-11-21 20:49               ` Steven Dake
2002-11-21 20:35                 ` Kevin Corry
2002-11-21 21:29             ` Alan Cox
2002-11-21 21:22               ` Doug Ledford
2002-11-21 20:53                 ` Kevin Corry
2002-11-21 21:55                   ` Doug Ledford
2002-11-21 23:49               ` DM vs MD (Was: RFC - new raid superblock layout for md driver) Luca Berra
2002-11-21 20:06           ` RFC - new raid superblock layout for md driver Joel Becker
2002-11-21 23:35           ` Luca Berra
2002-11-22 10:13   ` Joe Thornber
2002-12-02 21:38     ` Neil Brown
2002-12-03  8:24       ` Luca Berra
2002-11-20 17:05 ` Steven Dake
2002-11-20 23:30   ` Lars Marowsky-Bree
2002-11-20 23:48   ` Neil Brown
2002-11-21  0:29     ` Steven Dake
2002-11-21 15:23       ` John Stoffel
2002-11-21 19:36   ` Joel Becker
2002-11-22  7:11 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-11-20 15:55 Steve Pratt
2002-11-20 23:24 ` Neil Brown
2002-11-20 23:47 Lars Marowsky-Bree
2002-11-21  0:31 ` Neil Brown
2002-11-21  0:35 ` Steven Dake
2002-11-21  1:10   ` Alan Cox
2002-12-08 22:35   ` Neil Brown
2002-11-21 19:39 ` Joel Becker

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20021121203829.GH14063@redhat.com \
    --to=dledford@redhat.com \
    --cc=Joel.Becker@oracle.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=neilb@cse.unsw.edu.au \
    --cc=sdake@mvista.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).