[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: What LVM support is missing?

From: Simon Josefsson
Subject: Re: What LVM support is missing?
Date: Wed, 06 May 2020 09:33:53 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux)

Marius Bakke <address@hidden> writes:

> Simon Josefsson <address@hidden> writes:
>> The manual is quite clear that LVM support is missing:
>> This held me back from using guix as the OS for my virtualization
>> servers since I use LVM for virtual machines.  However, one evening I
>> was curious how difficult it would be to fix the above limitation, so I
>> started with a simple 'guix package -i lvm2' and that allowed me to get
>> LVM to work and I can't really notice anything missing.
>> Before producing a patch to correct the manual, could someone explain
>> what LVM support was intended that was missing?  Does a reference to LVM
>> as a limitation of Guix still make sense?
> What's missing is support in the configuration system: the ability to
> declare a LVM mapped device in the OS configuration and expect 'guix
> system init', 'guix system reconfigure' etc to work.
> LVM 2.03 simplifies things a bit, but I don't know of any recent
> attempts to add LVM support to the configuration system.

How is that different than RAID or LUKS support not being available
through that mechanism?  I need to run 'mdadm --create' or 'cryptsetup
luksFormat' externally to config.scm too.  It appears to me that the
status of LVM is similar o RAID or LUKS wrt the configuration system.  I
think people generally regard RAID and LUKS as supported and working by
Guix, right?  My point is that the state of LVM support is similar, so
the warning about this limitation may do more harm than good.  There
could be some more examples added on how to setup some LVM partitions
and have them be mounted, or even examples of how to put rootfs on LVM,
and with that the prominent warning about missing LVM could be dropped.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]