Re: Subject: [001/002 ] raid0 reshape

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Raz wrote:
It is not clear to me why Linux has both LVM and md,waste of
development effort to my opinion. Adding to that brtfs/zfs reaching
mainline, Linux will have 3-4 volume managers to maintain.
why not join hands  and come up with a single unify system?

Linux is about choice? One size doesn't fit all?

I see no reason for raid anything in LVM, it's a duplication of effort. By the same token, I think building everything into the file system, while it seems nice, means that you lose the flexibility of being able to control the devices, the raid behavior, and the allocation, each independently. I'll be the first to admit that I occasionally abuse that flexibility (story coming one of these days), but it's there.

As long as there's a tool to help the novice put the pieces together without in-depth technical expertise, I don't think limiting options to just one is desirable at all.

On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-v-b@xxxxxx> wrote:
Greg Freemyer <greg.freemyer@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

==> What I mean by raid equivalent levels

More and more arrays allow the user to simply say "give me a 100 GB
logical volume with Raid 5 equivalent protection.  The array then
looks at the drives it has available and puts together the necessary
pieces.  As drives are added, removed it moves the data around under
its own control, but maintains the raid equivalent protection.

Especially when working with dozens of drives and lots of logical
volumes it makes life much easier.  Admittedly it may come at a cost
of not being able to specify raid levels with the specificity that
mdraid currently allows.

==>

The reason I ask if this is the goal is that doing so may factor into
decisions about how reshaping is implemented.

Greg
That really seems to scream for LVM to support more raid levels. It
already has linear, raid0 and raid1 support (although I have no idea
how device mapper raid1 compares to md raid1).

Those should be fleshed out more and also support raid 4/5/6 for what
you ask.


--
bill davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
 CTO TMR Associates, Inc

"You are disgraced professional losers. And by the way, give us our money back."
   - Representative Earl Pomeroy,  Democrat of North Dakota
on the A.I.G. executives who were paid bonuses  after a federal bailout.


--
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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux RAID Wiki]     [ATA RAID]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Linux Block]     [Linux IDE]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux Hams]     [Device Mapper]     [Device Mapper Cryptographics]     [Kernel]     [Linux Admin]     [Linux Net]     [GFS]     [RPM]     [git]     [Yosemite Forum]


  Powered by Linux