Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 13:29:27 -0500
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>
To: Lars Marowsky-Bree <lmb@suse.de>
Cc: Neil Brown <neilb@cse.unsw.edu.au>, Daniel Gryniewicz <dang@fprintf.net>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFCI] How best to partition MD/raid devices in 2.6
Message-ID: <20031114182927.GA8810@gtf.org>
References: <16308.18387.142415.469027@notabene.cse.unsw.edu.au> <1068787304.4157.8.camel@localhost> <16308.26754.867801.131463@notabene.cse.unsw.edu.au> <20031114101647.GJ32211@marowsky-bree.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20031114101647.GJ32211@marowsky-bree.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1209
Lines: 31

On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 11:16:47AM +0100, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2003-11-14T16:30:42,
>    Neil Brown <neilb@cse.unsw.edu.au> said:
> 
> > There are issues with the raid superblock but assuming they can be
> > solved, I want partitioning to work easily.
> > 
> > Can LVM work happily with 'legacy' partitioning information?
> 
> I'd really suggest to run DM (either LVM2 or EVMS2) on top of md
> instead. It's much more flexible; I don't see any benefit in 'old style'
> partition information, which has all sorts of problems - ie,
> non-transactional updates (_why_ were you running raid again? ;), static
> as they can't be modified during runtime etc.

This brings up a tangent point...  partitions on top of RAID are a new
thing, which means that one has the chance to define the partition
format.

And I kinda like EFI partition format, a lot better than the other
common ones...

	Jeff


P.S. No, this isn't a blanket endorsement of EFI as a whole :)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/