[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-users] Basic questions - numbered /New String -- REPOSITORY ,SERVER and VIRTUAL OWNERSHIP

That clarification was very helpful. Thankyou.  You are far more patient about elementary issues than some people would be. It is a privilege to know people such as yourself.  Thanks again.

Your question "Have you thought about using LVM?"
Yes, but right now I am just studying issues where I am behind everyone else from an insight standpoint.  I want to be sure that I properly understand everything communicated. So I have a ways to go in that respect.

Once I have my satellite connection and static IP address I will probably step into LVM.

BTW: Regarding my satellite connection.  I have offered a repository and server (operating out of my LAN) to serve Dom 0 and Dom U build contributions -- if maintained by the contributor(s). My satellite ISP indicated that there are bandwidth limitations and if you people get involved and we find they are inadequate I will try to find money to extend that bandwidth. This server will guarantee that the latest stable packages are available on an on-going basis. I indicated that Xen developers would have authority to determine and influence other issues such as the placement of test and unstable builds on the server as it suited their purposes.  In other words, if desirable, part of the server operation could be dedicated to Xen development issues that require a server. All these considerations impact the choice of the server and necessitate set up by a knowledgeable web master. But for the general public I indicated that only stable build contributions would be served.  Every build contribution to the repository would have an associated web page maintained by the remote web master.  I generated quite a bit of email on this subject -- I don't know if you followed the thread as it got confused with another.  Anyway, this server would operate under Xen development  authority and would have a remote web master and administrator far more qualified than myself  (hopefully approved by the development team) -- I have requested a volunteer(s) to work remotely in this capacity (with me) and define and implement web server operation details.  I also offered to the contributors (including developers) remote access to the LAN (if they found it advantageous) so these packages could be exercised without downloading them (saving internet bandwidth). I offered gobs of hard drive and this is probably where the administrator would choose to implement LVM. I would simply be a provider and responsible for maintaining the physical resources involved.   I do not want to represent myself as something I am not and feel that this service could be extremely beneficial to everyone involved.  See the email threads.

Regardless, I will be setting up such a server. But I am giving you guys first crack at usage (part or full) of this server. If you guys are involved it would be a much more professional server set up than what I would do for myself.  I thought you guys could do a much more professional job and so my email deliberations for such a hosting situation have been put forth as a "proposal", the character of which require that your development group has to agree to be involved  at the very minimum as a regulatory body.  I am perfectly willing to see this set up so you people have as much control over this repository as you feel you want.  You would be calling the shots, not me. This way you don't find yourselves subjected to someone else's whims and authority and your authority is not split off into other directions. You are even welcome to assume the role as prime remote web master over the parts of my lan you may find useful and request additional resources.  All this comes FREE with no legal obligations in any form on your part so as not to compromise your project and other associations in any way. This should be considered by you as an opportunity  which you may or may not want to accept for your own reasons.  Anyway, you have whatever time you need to deliberate this issue and state your terms -- if any. I fully understand if you feel you have to reject this proposal.  I just want to ensure you have first crack at this.  

No hard feelings either way regarding any of your decisions.  I am just trying to be helpful in the ways that I feel I can be helpful and learn at the same time. Not every idea is in the right place at the right time and so that is your decision and not mine.  If you accept the opportunity development will have "VIRTUAL" ownership.  I did not send any email to [Xen-devel], you can do that if you see fit.

Thanks -- Ted

Tim Deegan wrote:
Hi Ted,

On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 12:26:13PM -0700, Ted Hilts wrote:
So, theoretically speaking,  if I were to use /dev/hde (the fith (5th) 
drive -- in the sequence a, b, c, d, e, f,  if there were no gaps) I 
would have  /hde1 and if on hde I allocated an extended partion with 64 
logical partitions (numbered 1 to 64) I could install a bootable (using 
Grub) linux distribution in each of these logical paritions.

Almost, but you can't use quite that many partitions (see below).

But I don't think this variability is 
the case with Grub and the designations are reserved, as in (hd4, n) 
which always refers to the 5th hard drive and a partition.

Yep.  Linux names drives based on how they are connected, e.g., /dev/sda
for the first SCSI drive, /dev/hdd for the second IDE drive on the
second channel, and so on. 

Linux uses partition numbers 1 to 4 for primary partitions, and then
counts all the logical partitions from 5 upwards, to a maximum of 63 for
IDE disks (so you can only have 59 logical partitions) and of 15 for
SCSI disks (so you can only have 11 logical partitions).


GrUB allocates drive numbers in the order the BIOS presents them,
regardless of whether they're SCSI or IDE, so they may not necessarily
be in the same order that linux sees them in.  I believe if you run the
grub command in a running linux it will try to figure out the mapping
for you.

GrUB uses partition numbers 0 to 3 for primary partitions, and then
counts all the logical partitions from 4 upwards.


Continuing theoretically: If that drive contained just logical 
partitions I would have on hde (hde1, hde2, hde3...hden) where n=1 to 64 
-- I believe 0 refers to the extended partition itself but I am not sure 
as it is not used just assumed.
And if this were translated into GRUB terminology I would have ((hd4,0), 
(hd4,1), (hd4,2)...(hdn-1,n-1) where n =1 to 64

If you have 59 logical partitions on the 5th IDE drive (and that drive
is the master device on the third controller, and you don't have any
non-IDE drives...), GrUB should call the logical partitions (hd4,4) to
(hd4,62).  Linux should call them /dev/hde5 to /dev/hde63.

Have you thought about using LVM? :)




Xen-users mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.