On 19 Dec 2002, Nathan J. Williams wrote:

> Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@netbsd.org> writes:
>
> > 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.
>
> I'll buy that. Which means, in general, that we shouldn't even think
> about discussing LVM-related issues now, lest we double the depth of
> this rathole.

Ok, I was, I think, mainly getting into LVMs as people said wedges would
be good for them. Yes, we can (and I think should) do one, but that's a
separate thread.

I'll hush on them for now.

> > 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.
>
> There are lots of LVMs. When we get to discussing this, in another
> thread, I will claim that the virtues of compatibility aren't worth
> the trouble that they will bring.

Ok, I will look forward to your posting.

Take care,

Bill