Re: (reiserfs) Re: LVM / Filesystems / High availability

Hans Reiser (reiser@ricochet.net)
Tue, 23 Jun 1998 09:04:13 -0700


You have to be block level if you want to shrink it, yes?

Stephen, I'll respond to the rest of your email in two days.

Hans

Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 22 Jun 1998 18:26:30 -0600 (MDT), Colin Plumb <colin@nyx.net>
> said:
>
> > Building a fake device out of bits of real devices is not that complicated.
> > The RAID code does this and the file system doesn't even need to know about
> > it.
>
> > The tricky part comes when you want to add or remove real devices, because
> > then your fake device changes size, and the file system needs to know
> > about *that*.
>
> Correct. There is in fact so much filesystem interaction required that
> I'm not at all convinced that a block-device LVM is needed or even
> useful. Virtual disks for redundancy or performance are just fine, but
> when it comes to filesystem sizing, the fs has to be actively involved
> in any change. Given that, we can actually implement the whole thing in
> the filesystem.
>
> Miguel's prototype LVM stuff works by letting you mke2fs a new partition
> and then daisy-chain that new device on to the end of the existing
> filesystem, at run time, while it is all mounted. Removing such a
> partition from the middle of a logical volume set is harder but
> certainly feasible in theory. Is there really any overwhelming
> justification for needing extra device-level support for this
> functionality? Given that we _need_ filesystem support, my own reaction
> is that splitting the support between fs and block device just
> complicates the matter; it's better just to do it in one place.
>
> --Stephen

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu