Re: Linux v2.5.42

From: jw schultz (jw@pegasys.ws)
Date: Sat Oct 12 2002 - 06:40:36 EST

Next message: Matthias Andree: "Re: The reason to call it 3.0 is the desktop (was Re: [OT] 2.6 not 3.0 - (NUMA))"
Previous message: Alan Cox: "Re: [Linux-streams] Re: [PATCH] Re: export of sys_call_tabl"
In reply to: Alan Cox: "Re: Linux v2.5.42"
Next in thread: Jon Portnoy: "Re: Linux v2.5.42"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 12:46:37PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Sat, 2002-10-12 at 12:11, jw schultz wrote:
> > So far everything indicates that LVM2 is not compatible with
> > LVM. That LVM2 and LVM(1) can coexist-exist is irrelevant if
> > 2.5 hasn't got a working LVM(1). And that would leave us
> > with having to do backup+restore around the upgrade.
>
> LVM2 supports LVM1 volumes. I don't know where you got the idea
> otherwise.

Good. I'm very glad to be wrong. Then all we need care
about is project maturity and design.

-- ________________________________________________________________ J.W. Schultz Pegasystems Technologies email address: jw@pegasys.ws

Remember Cernan and Schmitt - 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/

Next message: Matthias Andree: "Re: The reason to call it 3.0 is the desktop (was Re: [OT] 2.6 not 3.0 - (NUMA))"
Previous message: Alan Cox: "Re: [Linux-streams] Re: [PATCH] Re: export of sys_call_tabl"
In reply to: Alan Cox: "Re: Linux v2.5.42"
Next in thread: Jon Portnoy: "Re: Linux v2.5.42"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 15 2002 - 22:00:43 EST