Re: Volume Managers in Linux

Florian Lohoff (flo@quit.mediaways.net)
Wed, 4 Nov 1998 11:44:50 +0100


On Tue, Nov 03, 1998 at 11:45:22AM -0500, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> fsck: handled already by the existing block devices
> big science: an LVM adds overhead just like a filesystem would
> databases: not reccommended in 1998, and see "big science"
> ???
>
> In any case, you can use MD.
>
> I'd say you need large file support. Hack that instead, because it
> will be more useful to more people and easier to use than an LVM.

I disagree with you in that point. When i talked to Heinz at the Linux
Kongress in Germany i dreamed of a simple install with removed complexity
where most of the Newbies fail - Partitioning. Think of having an installation
where you ONLY have to choose the harddrive and possibly ONE partition and
the installer will automatically create a /usr /tmp /var /home / and swap
logical volume(s) and the user does NOT have to care on choosing the sizes
for those because they will be increased on installation automatically
(If we have an LVM AND resizeable filesystems)

If you ever installed an AIX you whish of doing this with your
linux distribution - Just choose Harddrive, language and dont care.
It will install in small 4MB partitions for / /var /tmp /usr /home
and you will be able to increase them for your needs after
the systems comes up finally.

You sure need big file support bug i think big file support is something
for BIG SERVERS serving Databases with >2GB Data volume. This is
5000 serves in the World - End users you have millions nowerdays.

Flo

-- 
Florian.Lohoff@mediaWays.net			+49-5241-80-7085
Good, Fast, Cheap: Pick any two (you can't have all three). (RFC 1925)

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/