| 1 |
On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 10:55:19 +0200 |
| 2 |
Joost Roeleveld <joost@××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> My personal preference would be option 1 as I agree with Alan that |
| 5 |
> LVM should stick to managing LVs and leave striping and other options |
| 6 |
> to RAID- devices/software. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
My preference is to get rid of this whole artifical |
| 9 |
disk/block-device/partition/pv/vg/lv nonsense and have one layer that |
| 10 |
does it all. I really don't see the point in persisting with keeping |
| 11 |
knowledge of distinct disks all the way through the stack, all of that |
| 12 |
should just be abstracted into "storage" that can have rules attached |
| 13 |
where you specify how you want stuff to behave (like mirroring and |
| 14 |
striping). |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
As it is, each layer is a very thin wrapper around a physical object |
| 17 |
and we only lose that distinction when we create lvs. Even though I |
| 18 |
understand how the whole stack works, it's still hard to visualize (5 |
| 19 |
layers!) and consumes way too much time explaining it to people. All |
| 20 |
rather unnecessary. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I had high hopes that ZFS would take us to a new place where all that |
| 23 |
would be possible. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Alan McKinnnon |
| 28 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives