On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 11:26:01AM +0100, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2006-01-23T10:44:18, Heinz Mauelshagen <mauelshagen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > Besides, stacking between dm devices so far (ie, if I look how kpartx
> > > does it, or LVM2 on top of MPIO etc, which works just fine) is via the
> > > block device layer anyway - and nothing stops you from putting md on top
> > > of LVM2 LVs either.
> > >
> > > I use the regularly to play with md and other stuff...
> >
> > Me too but for production, I want to avoid the
> > additional stacking overhead and complexity.
>
> Ok, I still didn't get that. I must be slow.
>
> Did you implement some DM-internal stacking now to avoid the above
> mentioned complexity?
>
> Otherwise, even DM-on-DM is still stacked via the block device
> abstraction...
No, not necessary because a single-level raid4/5 mapping will do it.
Ie. it supports <offset> parameters in the constructor as other targets
do as well (eg. mirror or linear).
>
>
> Sincerely,
> Lars Marowsky-Brée
>
> --
> High Availability & Clustering
> SUSE Labs, Research and Development
> SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - A Novell Business -- Charles Darwin
> "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
--
Regards,
Heinz -- The LVM Guy --
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Heinz Mauelshagen Red Hat GmbH
Consulting Development Engineer Am Sonnenhang 11
Cluster and Storage Development 56242 Marienrachdorf
Germany
Mauelshagen@xxxxxxxxxx +49 2626 141200
FAX 924446
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
