[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Optionally-partitioned devices





On 06/24/2009 01:22 AM, David Lehman wrote:
Hi all,

I'd like to get a better idea of the perceived usefulness of
optionally-partitioned devices. There are two basic examples:

  - whole-disk filesystem, lvm pv, md component,&c (no partition table)
  - partitioned md devices

We seem to have set out on this road to some extent by accepting patches
to use the md subsystem for some fakeraid formats, but I'm wondering how
far we want to go. Do we want to support creation of filesystems and
other formatting on disks with no disklabel? Do we want to support the
creation of disklabels on md devices other than fakeraid arrays?

This might have some impact on is the pending UI redesign, as well.
Whenever I think about this I end up thinking about having something
like "partition table (DOS)" and/or "partition table (GPT)" in the list
of available formats for certain device types.

With F12 (and RHEL6) approaching fast, it's time to decide what we want
to do on this front. Are there more than a handful of users who are
interested in this stuff? Is that number going to significantly increase
during the lifetime of RHEL6?

What are your thoughts?


Partionable mdraid is something which has been discussed before, and for which
we have feature requests. So we may want to do that, problem is that we
then have to be able to differentiate between a (regular metadata) mdraid set
as a disk (iow contains partitions, whole device not all that interesting) and
an mdraidset which directly holds a filesystem.

mdraid is the only thing besides raw disks where I would consider supporting
partitions on.

Regards,

Hans


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]