In the article at http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1054003,00.asp they talk about the 2.6 kernel having a DM, but not a LVM. What are they trying to say? What is it they think is missing? === Quote from the article According to Witham, a number of features that the development community believes are not yet ready to be incorporated into the 2.6 kernel may very well be pushed to 2.7. Among these features are support for complete Non-Uniform Memory Access as well as an EVMS (Enterprise Volume Management System), which deals with the difficult and controversial issue of volume management, Frye said, adding that 2.6 would be better than 2.4 in terms of volume management even without the EVMS. Oracle Corp. and Red Hat Inc. officials have also previously called for volume management. Wim Coekaerts, principal member of Oracle's technical staff, in Redwood Shores, Calif., said: "We would like Linux to have a Logical Volume Manager. The 2.6 kernel will have a device manager, but we need an LVM." Paul Cornier, executive vice president of Red Hat, in Raleigh, N.C., agreed. "Making a more generic cluster file system is important to us, as is an industrial-strength Logical Volume Manager," Cornier said. "A distributed lock manager completes things. This is functionality that needs to go into the operating system but is unlikely to be found in the next [kernel] upgrade." IBM's Frye said that there's clearly a need for an improved volume management system and that Linux is not yet good enough in that regard. ==== Thanks Greg -- Greg Freemyer _______________________________________________ linux-lvm mailing list linux-lvm@sistina.com http://lists.sistina.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/
