| |||||||||||||
Partition problemPartition problemPosted Mar 18, 2004 10:16 UTC (Thu) by stuart (subscriber, #623)Parent article: Lots of SCSI disks Surely running lvm (or device mapper -- dm) over the top of the disks makes sense in this environment? One can then create as many parititions as one wants using the LVM equivalents and hence the problem goes away. Stu.
(Log in to post comments)
Partition problem Posted Mar 19, 2004 2:00 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] Frankly, I've never understood why partitions are implemented down in the block device layer at all. If it were up to me, I'd use an LVM-style setup for ALL partitions -- i.e. a partition device driver stacked on top of a physical device driver, with the latter being blissfully ignorant of partitions.Then there's no need for partition bits in a SCSI disk minor number. And people with thousands of disks (which of course are not partitioned) wouldn't have to worry about partitions at all.
Partition problem Posted Mar 19, 2004 14:41 UTC (Fri) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] Block drivers are blissfully ignorant of partitions - in 2.6. Occasionally somebody brings up the idea of moving partition handling out entirely, all the way to user space. That probably will not happen, though; things like booting from an arbitrary partition get increasingly hard when you do that.
Partition problem Posted Mar 19, 2004 17:01 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] They're not totally ignorant, or it wouldn't have come up here. The SCSI disk driver (sd) has to be aware enough of the existence of partitions to allocate exactly 16 minor numbers for each physical device. If partitions were instead handled by a separate device driver with a separate major number, LVM style, we wouldn't be worrying about how many bits to reserve for partitions.I can't imagine how partitions could be moved all the way out to user space and maintain any significant part of their value.
|
|||||||||||||