On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, Greg Oster wrote:

> Bill Studenmund writes:
> > On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, Greg Oster wrote:
> >
> > > I keep talking about a PV system, not a LVM system.. (i.e. Physical Volume
> > > system, not Logical Volume Managment).  So while yes, a FreeBSD
> > > partition might not fit into a LVM, it would (IMO) fit into a PV Management
> > > system.
> >
> > ?? I'm very confused. Why do you have partitions (note plural) on a
> > physical volume of an LVM?
>
> ?? Ok, now I'm confused.  Where did I say that??

Ok. I think we should stop that part of the thread. :-) We're not at all
on the same page. :-)

> > ?? Where are you going with this?
>
> Only to (try to) make the point that the native disklabel on a given arch may
> not be flexible enough to allow a consistent implementation of wedges across
> all platforms.  And if that would force us into using a different label scheme,
> then I'd like to see that scale to LVMs... (yes, I know.. I read the whole
> message before writing this.. :) )

?? wedges and diskpart both don't require more metadata than current
partitioning schemes offer.

If we could have shoved more metadata into the partitions from the
begining (i.e. EVERY partitioing scheme had comparable support), we
wouldn't have a number of the problems we do. :_)

> > We probably will be adding a new labeling scheme to read & write, but
> > that's only related to the fact that we want to deal with disks that won't
> > fit in the current schemes.
>
> My impression was that there was going to be enough new stuff happening here
> that we could at least have LVM's in the back of our minds when working on
> this stuff; especially if we are changing the contents of the native labels.
> If we arn't actually mucking with the layout/content of the labels, but only
> with the how they are read/written, that's much less interesting for me :)

Heh, we aren't mucking with the layout/content of labels.

We might add support for the Intel partitioning scheme in their new BIOS
support spec. But that would be more so that we have at least _one_
labeling scheme to support large disks.

> > I don't think we know enough of what we want for LVMs right now, so I
> > think this isn't the time to go there.
>
> I can agree with that.  I have a reasonable idea of what I'd like to see for
> RAIDframe (which is why I "shot high" and went all the way to scalling to
> LVMs), but it doesn't sound like the labels are changing in any way that
> RAIDframe can make use of for storing it's metadata, so I'll not bring
> that up here :)
>
> So as long as RAIDframe can still autoconfig a partition/wedge/whatever,
> I'll be happy (and quiet :) ).

I FULLY expect that RAIDframe will still autorconfig a partition/diskpart
partition. I think it'd be wrong if it didn't. :-)

Take care,

Bill