Alan Cox wrote on Tuesday 05 October 2004 10:03: > On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 01:01:49PM -0400, Neal D. Becker wrote: > > > Is there a good reason to use LVM or LVM2 rather than EVMS? Is > > > there a reason EVMS isn't included in FC? > > > > IIRC LVM was accepted by kernel developers over EVMS, which quietly > > accepted this decision. > > Indeed. EVMS kernel space is dead. Linus rejected it for the device > mapper layer. Fedora tracks upstream so EVMS is not in, never having > made upstream. Interesting, I didn't know that, but it makes sense given what I've seen in the various projects. > EVMS userspace as I understand it is still being developed but using > the device mapper. Right. Best I can tell, there are no 2.6.8.1 kernel patches required by EVMS for the great majority of functionality. Most of the useful functionality is provided in userspace, building on DM as shipped in the stock kernel. There are a couple of optional 2.6.8.1 kernel patches you can apply to get extra EVMS functionalilty. To get EVMS bad block relocation, you need to apply a patchset from the DM project's "unstable" patch collection, plus a DM patch shipped with EVMS. To have EVMS manage some partitions on a disk, while allowing the normal kernel mechanisms to manage other partitions on that disk, you have to apply an EVMS-supplied patch that backs out the bd-claim-whole-disk patch that was applied (I think) in kernel 2.6.0-test4. Most people probably either don't want this functionality (keep your kernel-managed system disks separate from your data-dump disks), or can work around it without applying the back-out patch. David
