From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lars Marowsky-Bree Subject: Re: [PATCH 000 of 5] md: Introduction Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 11:26:01 +0100 Message-ID: <20060123102601.GD2366@marowsky-bree.de> References: <17360.5011.975665.371008@cse.unsw.edu.au> <43D02033.4070008@cfl.rr.com> <17360.9233.215291.380922@cse.unsw.edu.au> <20060120183621.GA2799@redhat.com> <20060120225724.GW22163@marowsky-bree.de> <20060121000142.GR2801@redhat.com> <20060121000344.GY22163@marowsky-bree.de> <20060121000806.GT2801@redhat.com> <20060121001311.GA22163@marowsky-bree.de> <20060123094418.GX2801@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060123094418.GX2801@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Heinz Mauelshagen Cc: Neil Brown , Phillip Susi , Jan Engelhardt , "Lincoln Dale (ltd)" , Michael Tokarev , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Steinar H. Gunderson" List-Id: linux-raid.ids On 2006-01-23T10:44:18, Heinz Mauelshagen wrot= e: > > Besides, stacking between dm devices so far (ie, if I look how kpar= tx > > does it, or LVM2 on top of MPIO etc, which works just fine) is via = the > > block device layer anyway - and nothing stops you from putting md o= n top > > of LVM2 LVs either. > >=20 > > I use the regularly to play with md and other stuff... >=20 > Me too but for production, I want to avoid the > additional stacking overhead and complexity. Ok, I still didn't get that. I must be slow. Did you implement some DM-internal stacking now to avoid the above mentioned complexity?=20 Otherwise, even DM-on-DM is still stacked via the block device abstraction... Sincerely, Lars Marowsky-Br=E9e --=20 High Availability & Clustering SUSE Labs, Research and Development SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - A Novell Business -- Charles Darwin "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"