On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Patrick Bartek <bartek...@yahoo.com> wrote: > From: Roger Leigh <rle...@codelibre.net> > Sent: Friday, January 4, 2013 3:02 AM >> >> LVM does not use unpartitioned space for anything TTBOMK. It uses >> physical volumes (PVs) which are block devices (either partitions or >> whole disks or RAID arrays etc.). These are entirely self-contained. >> Internally, the PV contains its own metadata and extents which are >> allocated to individual logical volumes within the volume group >> containing the PV. It's simply impractical and fragile to use >> unpartitioned space, and LVM only uses the devices (partitions) you >> put the PVs on. > > That was what I read--somewhere?--in an article on LVM. It was just > one sentence mentioned in passing and was never detailed. > > If using unpartitioned space is so "fragile" Why do the MBR or GPT, > etc. use it? Seems to be a great place to "hide" data about something > like a LVM partition that's not going to change frequently, and is > beyond normal filesystem access. Just a thought.
The MBR, whether on msdos or gpt, is a well-defined area at the beginning of a disk, not a random space between partitions. There's no LVM data held off a PV, whether it's a partition or a disk. The LVM metadata of a PV is stored in the second sector of that PV and its LV "usable area" follows. Your article might have been referring to this separation. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=Sy-EAAymhbziJSYi9EWpyKsmfSJao7nkK_qc2jFmwN2=a...@mail.gmail.com
