On 19 Dec 2002, Nathan J. Williams wrote:

> Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@netbsd.org> writes:
>
> > Among other things, the only logical volumes we could express (say from
> > reading an IBM/OSF/HPUX volume group) in terms of wedges are very simple
> > ones; ones where there is no striping or mirroring going on, and where the
> > whole LV was allocated in terms of one extent. Anything more sophisticated
> > than that won't be expressable via wedges.
> >
> > While I think the kernel might need something like wedges in an LVM
> > subsystem, I don't see why we need to expose it to userland.
>
> Okay, sure. LVMs are harder. That still doesn't address your claim
> that it would be nice to adopt someone else's LVM layout or metadata.

I'm confused.

I was trying to say that as best I can tell, LVMs won't make use of
wedges. i.e. LVMs won't be just another partitoin type; they will be an
entirely different beast.

As for being binary-compatable with someone else's LVM, it permits us to
interoperate with a lot more OSs. Say for dual-booting. Also there are
projects, like GFS, that have an assosciated LVM format. Being able to
play in that arena seems interesting to me.

My confusion though is that while I like the idea of using an exising LVM
format, we aren't at the place of deciding what LVM we are coding, at
least AFAICT.

Take care,

Bill