Hi Michael,
On Thursday 29 November 2007 00:55, Michael Tautschnig wrote:
> No, it's never too late, we're in an open world :-)
Great! :)
How about storage setup? or setup_storage, which would be similar to
setup_harddisk but also indicate that it can do more than setup harddiscs :)
regards,
Michael Tautschnig wrote:
> [...]
> - does not matter all that much as this is only an implementation detail of
> FAI
Not a too bad argument, also :)
Henning
[...]
>
> Other ideas: "setup harddisk ng", "storage setup"
>
> Hmm, the last describes it's goals and work best - if storage is
> something remotely, we are not setting up a harddisk, and it is no magic
> but hard calculation... (no, we shouldn't call it "hard storage setup
> calculator and setu
Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Saturday 24 November 2007 19:28, Maximilian Wilhelm wrote:
>>> But luckily, Storage Magic isn't far anymore...
>> I'll have a look at it.
>> The word magic is kind of 'warning'...
>
> I agree. I liked the old name, setup harddisks 2, better.
> It's more descripti
> Hi,
>
> On Saturday 24 November 2007 19:28, Maximilian Wilhelm wrote:
> > > But luckily, Storage Magic isn't far anymore...
> > I'll have a look at it.
> > The word magic is kind of 'warning'...
>
> I agree. I liked the old name, setup harddisks 2, better.
> It's more descriptive, less cryptic.
Hi,
On Saturday 24 November 2007 19:28, Maximilian Wilhelm wrote:
> > But luckily, Storage Magic isn't far anymore...
> I'll have a look at it.
> The word magic is kind of 'warning'...
I agree. I liked the old name, setup harddisks 2, better.
It's more descriptive, less cryptic.
But I guess its
[...]
>
> > The downside of setup harddisks is, that probably nobody will add
> > patches to it anymore...
>
> Why not?
>
[...]
For the simple reason that Storage Magic is intended to be the successor of
setup_harddisks, so I guess we won't integrate any new features into
setup_harddisks anymor
Am Saturday, den 24 November hub Henning Sprang folgendes in die Tasten:
> Maximilian Wilhelm wrote:
> >> Why not just use the solution for this described in the Wiki? That works
> >> without changing the FAI code.
> > Because I have to edit a script each time I want to setup a Dom-U.
> > Besides
Maximilian Wilhelm wrote:
>> Why not just use the solution for this described in the Wiki? That works
>> without changing the FAI code.
>
> Because I have to edit a script each time I want to setup a Dom-U.
> Besides that you then have two ways of configuring disk stuff.
True, that's a downside.
Am Saturday, den 24 November hub Henning Sprang folgendes in die Tasten:
Hi!
> > The attached patch adds simple support for Xen Dom-Us which don't have
> > "a disk" as such (read: Not /dev/xvd[a-z] device) but get every
> > "partition" as a single /dev/xvd[a-z][0-9]+ device.
> Why not just use t
Maximilian Wilhelm wrote:
> Hi!
>
> The attached patch adds simple support for Xen Dom-Us which don't have
> "a disk" as such (read: Not /dev/xvd[a-z] device) but get every
> "partition" as a single /dev/xvd[a-z][0-9]+ device.
Why not just use the solution for this described in the Wiki? That wor
Hi!
The attached patch adds simple support for Xen Dom-Us which don't have
"a disk" as such (read: Not /dev/xvd[a-z] device) but get every
"partition" as a single /dev/xvd[a-z][0-9]+ device.
setup_harddisks now does not care about disk sizes and partion tables
anymore when class XENU is set and
12 matches
Mail list logo
