On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 17:42 +0200, Sven Eschenberg wrote: > All 'logical' block devices behave pretty much like physical ones. > > So you are free to put partition tables on top of lvs or dmcrypt block > devices, you can aswell put each other on top of each other. It just > adds possible layers of failure and or overhead. Not really; Linux block devices don't have to support partitioning in the kernel and this is the case for device-mapper devices. In practice it doesn't make much difference since device-mapper also allows arbitrary regions of existing devices to be mapped into a new device. With a tool that can read and interpret partition table metadata this allows partitioning to be added in user space for those devices that don't support it natively. > Since LVs give you the opportunity to be created in whatever size you > wish, in many usage cases it is perfectly normal and straight forward to > put a filesystem ontop of an LV instead of a partition table. Yes, this is the typical usage. Partitioning LVs is mostly of use when you for some reason want to treat the LV as a whole-disk image for a device that would normally be partitioned, e.g. an image for a virtualised system. Regards, Bryn. _______________________________________________ linux-lvm mailing list linux-lvm@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/