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

[Ted Hilts <thilts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tim
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).
>
> http://lxr.linux.no/source/Documentation/devices.txt#L192
> http://lxr.linux.no/source/Documentation/devices.txt#L272
>
> 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.
>
> http://www.gnu.org/software/grub/manual/html_node/Naming-convention.html#Naming%20convention
>
> > 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? :)
>
> HTH,
>
> Tim.



_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users