From: Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org>
To: user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [uml-devel] Partitioning scheme for ubd's
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 17:46:21 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20031101224621.GP6350@dijkstra.csh.rit.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200311011159.11435.blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it>
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 11:59:11AM +0100, BlaisorBlade wrote:
> But there is a problem here:
> 1) device names are not consistent: if you want to use ubd[a-z], decide so
> and start the change(for 2.6 there's a lot more changes anyway, so it is a
> good occasion...)
Are you talking about /proc/partitions or something else?
> 2) if I do an install, I can partition the ubd's; but then, I won't be
> able to loop mount the file on the host(and if I'm in trouble, this
> ability is worth a lot). In fact, I've never partitioned the ubd's, but
> this meant a lot of trouble even to run Slackware install.
Of course you can; use losetup -o (or mount -o loop,offset=). But I don't
see what this has to do with partition support for ubd. You can use
partitions or not, depending on what you prefer, just as with a real block
device.
> 3) so, I thought this: since partitioning schemes are pluggable, it would be
> possible to fool it and turn the ubd's into partitions of a single disk. I.e.
> if I setup udb0, ubd1 and so on, they would be seen as three partitions of a
> single disk. But they are still different files, loop-mountable on host.
>
> Would you ever accept this? The other possible solution(which would be
> cleaner) would be to teach, if possible, to the host kernel Device Manager to
> read a file as a bunch of partition with its table(I've heard of DM about COW
> files these days), and then to mount the partitions, but I don't know if it's
> possible.
I can't think of any instance where I'd want this mixed solution, instead of
the existing options with partitions and multiple ubd devices.
--
- mdz
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.
Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it
help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help
YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/
_______________________________________________
User-mode-linux-devel mailing list
User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-11-01 22:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-11-01 10:59 [uml-devel] Partitioning scheme for ubd's BlaisorBlade
2003-11-01 22:46 ` Matt Zimmerman [this message]
2003-11-03 11:23 ` Henrik Nordstrom
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-11-02 19:15 James W McMechan
2003-11-03 2:41 ` [uml-devel] " Jeff Dike
2003-11-04 18:21 BlaisorBlade
2003-11-04 19:52 ` Matt Zimmerman
2003-11-04 20:38 ` BlaisorBlade
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=20031101224621.GP6350@dijkstra.csh.rit.edu \
--to=mdz@debian.org \
--cc=user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
/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