1 |
Alexander Skwar wrote: |
2 |
> Eric S. Johansson <esj@××××××.org> wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
>> Dirk Heinrichs wrote: |
5 |
>> |
6 |
>>>> heap. It's a classic example of "second system syndrome" as defined by |
7 |
>>>> "the mythical Man month". |
8 |
>>> Errh, what? |
9 |
>> rtfb it was published in 1972, is still in print and the first five |
10 |
>> chapters are as relevant today as they were when it was first published. |
11 |
>> It explains why software projects fail. I think it's pretty sad when |
12 |
>> failings in an industry recognized 35 years ago are still happening today. |
13 |
>> |
14 |
>> Brooks says write one system to throw away because you are going to anyway. |
15 |
>> The first time you implement, you don't understand the problem and you |
16 |
>> frequently leave out functionality or implement things in a clumsy or |
17 |
>> incorrect way. This next implementation you, in theory, understand the |
18 |
>> problem and can do a better job which leads us to... |
19 |
>> |
20 |
>> second system syndrome. when you implement a system for the second time |
21 |
>> you think you have the problem fully understood, add lots of features and |
22 |
>> capabilities and end up with a disaster on your hands because you over |
23 |
>> estimated your capabilities. |
24 |
>> |
25 |
>> which is really Fred Brooks's way of saying write two system to throw away |
26 |
>> because you're going to anyway. |
27 |
>> |
28 |
>> a great example of this is Microsoft. They rarely get anything right until |
29 |
>> the third version (implementation). Other examples are easily found if you |
30 |
>> just look. |
31 |
>> |
32 |
>>>> It's overly complicated, poorly documented, and has a terrible user |
33 |
>>>> interface that only a geek would even consider using. |
34 |
>>> What's wrong with the excelent user guide on the project's site? Which of |
35 |
>>> the three UIs exactly do you think is horrible? |
36 |
>> could never get the containers nesting right. |
37 |
> |
38 |
> What "container nesting"? Oh, you're talking about EVMS? I too never got the |
39 |
> hang of it. I'm perfectly fine with using plain LVM. |
40 |
> |
41 |
>> If the instructions on how to use an LVM can't be explained on a postcard, |
42 |
>> you don't understand how to communicate |
43 |
> |
44 |
> pvcreate /dev/hda vgcreate data /dev/hda lvcreate -L42g data mkfs |
45 |
> /dev/data/lvol0 |
46 |
> |
47 |
> What's so hard about that? Does that fit on a postcard? |
48 |
|
49 |
it needs a little more detail so a user can extrapolate to what they need but, |
50 |
yeah that's basically what I'm looking for. I guess it's time to start the |
51 |
postcard series of documentation. :-) |
52 |
|
53 |
What is hard however is developing the postcard level documentation for disaster |
54 |
recovery. Again, that's something I'll work on when I have the time. |
55 |
> |
56 |
> -v: pvcreate /dev/hda: Intialize the device as a physical volume (pv), so |
57 |
> that it can be used by LVM. One time job. |
58 |
|
59 |
would need reference physical volume, physical device associations (i.e. single |
60 |
disc or hardware raid). is there any way to display/enumerate them independent |
61 |
of non-LVM devices? (note: don't need an answer on this, it's just illustrating |
62 |
the kind of follow-on questions that come up.) |
63 |
|
64 |
> vgcreate data /dev/hda: Create a container called "data" which will hold the |
65 |
> different sub-containers. The "data" container is made up of the /dev/hda |
66 |
> physical volume. |
67 |
|
68 |
what is a sub container? why is it needed? when do you need it? do/can you |
69 |
create a container spanning multiple devices? When, how, why? |
70 |
|
71 |
> lvcreate -L42g data: Create a logical volume (lv) on the "data" volume group |
72 |
> (vg). It's sized "42g" (42GiB). |
73 |
|
74 |
again, is a logical volume a single physical volume? If the volume group called |
75 |
data (how did it get from container to volume group) is the same as the physical |
76 |
volume, why not just use the physical volume? |
77 |
|
78 |
> mkfs /dev/data/lvol0: Create a file system on the newly created lv. |
79 |
|
80 |
in other words, the logical volume is treated by the system in exactly the same |
81 |
way as a physical volume. It's a logical disk. |
82 |
|
83 |
these are just some of the "naïve user" questions that come to mind. They |
84 |
aren't answers concisely in most of the documentation I have seen. Part of the |
85 |
reason I say "explain it on a postcard" is because the format forces you to |
86 |
focus your thoughts and explain the system concisely. the same technique as |
87 |
used in communicating with the busy suit although it's usually explaining your |
88 |
idea in 13 words or less. |
89 |
|
90 |
> |
91 |
>> with your users or the implementation is really off. |
92 |
> |
93 |
> Nope. Some things simply *ARE* complicated. |
94 |
|
95 |
Richard Feynman, a great physicist, once stated that if you can not explain a |
96 |
(physics) problem at a freshman level then you don't understand the problem. |
97 |
Edward Tufte has a series of books on information design simplifying |
98 |
complicated things so that you can communicate clearly. Either of these men are |
99 |
smarter than you and I put together. I highly recommend reading Tufte's books |
100 |
or watch Feynman's testimony at the Challenger committee hearing where he shows |
101 |
with a glass of ice water the most likely explanation for the disaster. Clear, |
102 |
simple and easily understood by most people. If these men successfully |
103 |
live/lived by the guideline that complex explanations means you don't |
104 |
understand, I'm willing to accept it as true to make that one of my guiding |
105 |
principles. |
106 |
|
107 |
|
108 |
-- |
109 |
Speech-recognition in use. It makes mistakes, I correct some. |
110 |
-- |
111 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |