From: Andreas Kostyrka (andreas_at_mtg.co.at)
Date: Thu 31 Oct 2002 - 17:14:13 GMT
Am Don, 2002-10-31 um 09.32 schrieb Matt Ayres:
> This was sent to me privately regarding LVM, mide as well share it.
> "This is the solution I really want us, but it allows raw access to the
> LVM share and the kernel assumes that consisent filesystem data--this
> allows the user to shove corrupt filesystem data in and confuse/hang the
How does using LVM expose anything more than using normal /dev/[sh]d?
devices? As far as I get the vserver concept (I'm at the theoretical
stage, because I lack a RedHat system, and compiling this stuff is
nontrivial on SuSE. Haven't tried yet on Debian), the vserver admin does
not handle it's server on a /dev/ basis, as the vserver gets an already
completely mounted filesystem setup, ...
So this does not make sense to me? How does putting the vservers into
LVM devices expose the raw data to a vserver root?
> I've not looked into the validity of this, but it seems reasonable.
Nope, it does not seem reasonable. Only drawback of using LVM for
vservers is, that you cannot unify the servers, ...
OTOH, you get a per vserver quota, that you can change while the server
is online. With hotpluggable discs (scsi, firewire, usb2.0 come to mind)
you can even add storage space online, ...