From: Matt Z. <md...@de...> - 2003-11-01 22:46:23
|
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 11:59:11AM +0100, BlaisorBlade wrote: > But there is a problem here: > 1) device names are not consistent: if you want to use ubd[a-z], decide so > and start the change(for 2.6 there's a lot more changes anyway, so it is a > good occasion...) Are you talking about /proc/partitions or something else? > 2) if I do an install, I can partition the ubd's; but then, I won't be > able to loop mount the file on the host(and if I'm in trouble, this > ability is worth a lot). In fact, I've never partitioned the ubd's, but > this meant a lot of trouble even to run Slackware install. Of course you can; use losetup -o (or mount -o loop,offset=). But I don't see what this has to do with partition support for ubd. You can use partitions or not, depending on what you prefer, just as with a real block device. > 3) so, I thought this: since partitioning schemes are pluggable, it would be > possible to fool it and turn the ubd's into partitions of a single disk. I.e. > if I setup udb0, ubd1 and so on, they would be seen as three partitions of a > single disk. But they are still different files, loop-mountable on host. > > Would you ever accept this? The other possible solution(which would be > cleaner) would be to teach, if possible, to the host kernel Device Manager to > read a file as a bunch of partition with its table(I've heard of DM about COW > files these days), and then to mount the partitions, but I don't know if it's > possible. I can't think of any instance where I'd want this mixed solution, instead of the existing options with partitions and multiple ubd devices. -- - mdz |