begin quoting James G. Sack (jim) as of Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 06:42:22PM -0800: > SJS wrote: > > begin quoting James G. Sack (jim) as of Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 04:26:06PM > > -0800: > >> Tracy R Reed wrote: > >>> James G. Sack (jim) wrote: > >>>> Whether that's right or not, it's still convenient to call the resulting > >>>> capabilities LVM. Now, it strikes me that the unique contribution by LVM > >>>> is snapshot and data migration (pvmove). That is, could not the > >>>> re-allocation stuff be done outside of LVM? Though I suppose, perhaps > >>>> not as dynamically, eh? > > > > Are those two contributions really unique? > > Don't really know. They are not even quite "unrelated to each other", I > suppose. Where else do we see snapshot or this kind of migration? > > Vmware? > XEN? > something similar in other OSes?
Snapshots have been around as long as we've been able to mount a file as a partition. Linux used to do that, back in the dark ages -- you could set up a file on your MSDOS system and use that as your linux disk. Even then, I wouldn't have thought the concept new. I _suspect_ that Veritas does, and has done, this. However, I have never used Veritas (to my knowledge, anyway). [snip] > > Aren't you talking about ZFS now? ;-) > > Maybe? I know I've seen gripes about them short-circuiting the > "layering". It's sometimes useful to reinvent the wheel, no? > > >From wikipedia: [snip] > Hmmm, maybe that's had a subconscious impact on my question? Could be. :) -- If you next ask about dtrace, we'll know it to be true. Stewart Stremler -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
