![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
> From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@MIT.EDU> > Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 16:13:12 -0400 > A block-device LVM can do this, but at the cost of being very > inefficient when you need retire a physical device which happens to be > located in the middle of a filesystem, a lot more block copying needs to > be done than if you let the filesystem simply handle it. No matter which software user (filesystem, database etc.) is actually performing on a LVM device, we get use of _TRANSPARENTLY_ retiring whatever sized disk (sure, we have to have a free one of at least the same size), because the logical adress space _NEVER_ changes while moving physical extends around to retire disk(s)!!! BTW: please have a look at http://www.msede.com/linux/lvm/ for terms and features of the LVM to clearify things So, please let's stop the discussion: "let's do it in the filesystem / no, let's do it in the device layer (LVM)" Discussion about extending FSes at the _END_ and reducing them _FROM_ the end allready started AFAIK (this one should indead go to linux-fsdevel). I'ld always prefer mass storage admin flexibility for _ALL_ mass storage software users (maybe loosing some performance), because we all don't retire disks all day, do we?! BTW: LVM is a large scalabillity issue, not a desktop one Regards, Heinz -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Systemmanagement Entwicklungsbereich 2 Deutsche Telekom AG Entwicklungszentrum Darmstadt Heinz Mauelshagen Otto-Roehm-Strasse 71c Postfach 10 05 41 mge@ez-darmstadt.telekom.de 64205 Darmstadt Germany +49 6151 886-425 FAX-386 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:43 [W:0.091 / U:0.130 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||