Proposal for a new disk configuration utility

[Sam Vilain]

Michael Tautschnig wrote:

>>    Also you used to be able to specify which metadevice each one is.
>>    Normally you only care for consistency.  These problems are
>>    perhaps peripherally related.
>>    
>>
>I'm not entirely sure, whether I understood that correctly: Are you talking
>about explicit numberings of the devices? My idea was to make the way the RAID
>config works as similar as possible to the configuration of physical disks,
>where the numbers are set implicitly by the ordering as well.
>  
>

Sure, if that's the convention then nothing to be done there.  That
might get a bit out of hand for more complex setups, but I guess those
are uncommon enough not to care.  People can always use comments if
they're setting up systems like that.

>> 2. Support optional specification of a PV to put a volume on.
>>
>>    The script I wrote allowed you to do this.  For instance you might
>>    use one bug VG for flexibility, but specify that certain
>>    partitions end up on one physical volume seperate.  For example
>>    database journal volumes are often moved onto seperate disksets
>>    for busy OLTP servers.  However, you don't want to set up seperate
>>    VGs for them because then you can't move LVs between them.
>>    
>>
>
>Actually I didn't even know that this is possible... I'll put this in my notes.
>
>  
>
>>Otherwise, I like the fact you're using EBNF to specify, makes
>>implementing it look more tempting :).
>>
>>Actually reading the EBNF I think you've got the latter concern
>>covered; is that what is intended with this rule?
>>
>>  type ::= primary
>>           /* for physical disks only */
>>           | logical
>>           /* for physical disks only */
>>           | raid[015]
>>           /* raid level */
>>           | [^/[:space:]]+:[^/[:space:]]+
>>           /* lvm logical volume: pv name and lv name*/
>>
>>    
>>
>
>What do you mean by "the latter concern"? I'm not really sure what I am to tell
>you here!?
>  
>

Sorry for using such obscure English constructs ;-).

What I mean is, you've got a rule there that lets you put a PV and LV
name in the rule for a partition.  Perhaps that comment was supposed to
say "vg", not "pv" ?

Sam.