On Monday 22 July 2002 12:23, Joe Thornber wrote:
> It would be good if other volume managers embrace device-mapper
> allowing us to work together on the kernel side, and compete in
> userland. Kernel development takes *far* too much manpower for us to
> be duplicating work.
Competition has its own benefits.
> For example I released the LVM2 vs EVMS snapshot
> benchmarks in the hope of encouraging EVMS to move over to
> device-mapper, unfortunately 2 months later a reply is posted stating
> that they have now developed equivalent (but broken) code :(
Supposing both device-mapper and (the kernel part of) EVMS get into the tree,
there's nothing stopping you from submitting a patch to make EVMS use
device-mapper. If there's already equivalent code in EVMS, that just makes
the job easier.
I'm firmly in the 'we need both' camp.
EVMS is a full-bloated^W blown enterprise solution, ready to go with every
imaginable bell and whistle. Device-mapper represents the classic Linux
minimalist approach. Hopefully, with the two side-by-side in the tree, both
will evolve more rapidly.
-- Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 23 2002 - 22:00:39 EST