Re: (reiserfs) Re: LVM / Filesystems / High availability

Rik van Riel (H.H.vanRiel@phys.uu.nl)
Thu, 25 Jun 1998 15:54:46 +0200 (CEST)

On Thu, 25 Jun 1998, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> Michael Marxmeier writes:
> > Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> >>
> >> md already provides the ability to do much of this. The question is
> >> whether we need to actually resize existing [virtual] block devices:
> >
> > LVM extends on the capabilities of MD.
> > - MD is limited to block devices whereas LVM is much more flexible
> > to support non-continguous devices as well.
> > - standard administration
> > - the LVM design could more easily extended
> >
> > I would like MD to be replaced by LVM.
>
> MD can provide the real block devices.

No it can't. MD works on the block device level, meaning
that you can't simply extend your raid-5 LV...
_Unless_, of course, you want to divide all your disks in
tiny chunks of the same size and handle the LVM stuff on
top of that. Compared to that scenario, the LVM solution
will probably be much cleaner :)

Rik.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Linux memory management tour guide. H.H.vanRiel@phys.uu.nl |
| Scouting Vries cubscout leader. http://www.phys.uu.nl/~riel/ |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu