Thanks for the help guys. We just ended up pulling from our backup, so, even though we didn't end up getting this resolved, we're in good shape. Anyway, thanks again! On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Bryn M. Reeves<bmr@redhat.com> wrote: > 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/ > -- Adam Olsen SendOutCards.com http://www.vimtips.org http://last.fm/user/synic _______________________________________________ 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/
