On Thu, 28 Dec 2000, Todd Vierling wrote:

# On Thu, 28 Dec 2000, Chuck Silvers wrote:
# : I think we should consider a logical volume manager design
# : rather than continuing to fiddle with fixed-partitioning.
# 
# That's not addressed by this thread, and does not help people who want this
# feature *right now*.

[*emphasis mine*, above.]

Not to mention that the overhead of a volume manager may be undesirable
to people who "just want a @*(#!^& functional partition table that has
more than 5 usable partitions".  As an i386 user, I concur with this.
You can have your volume manager.  Quite frankly, I don't want to be
bothered with it if I can get there by other means.  Volume management
is not inherently portable; at least the disklabels can be munged by the
target.  [Tangentially, all-dynamics is not the way to go -- I don't care
what Sun and Microsoft say.  Static things have their place and purpose.]

Are we *seriously* going to end up with an sd<some-ungodly-number> some-
where?  That'd take a serious number of wide controllers to handle; I don't
know of a system that could handle that many; hopefully by the time one
exists, we'll have thought of something better.

				--*greywolf;
--
*BSD: Twice the Bits-Clean of other Leading OSes.