Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Software

Linus Torvalds On Linux 2.6 323

Posted by Hemos from the checking-in-with-the-man dept.
ceebABC writes "Linus Torvalds talks about the upcoming Linux 2.6 kernel, in an interview with eWEEK. Linus discusses the scalability and memory management in the new kernel. They also have a story about what's supposed to be in Linux 3.0."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linus Torvalds On Linux 2.6 More

Linus Torvalds On Linux 2.6

Comments Filter:

  • Slashdot Beatitudes (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 25, 2002 @02:09PM (#4752899)
    And seeing the multitudes, He went up unto the mountain: and when He was set, his disciples came unto him: And He opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,

    "Blessed are the poor in threshold: for theirs is the Kingdom of the Page-Lengthening and Page-Widening Posts.

    "Blessed are they that mourn the death of *BSD: for they shall be comforted with an ultradense Linux server from VA Linux, now sold by California Digital Corporation.

    "Blessed are the posters of smug one-liners: for they shall inherit an Account Capped at 50.

    "Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after The First Post: for they shall have the Third or Fourth Post.

    "Blessed are the karma whores: for they shall obtain "Score: 5, Insightful".

    "Blessed are those who dismiss out-of-hand: for they shall fail to see the Point of the Original Post.

    "Blessed are those who seek to associate themselves with the latest techno-fad: for they shall be called 3L33T for at least Another Half Hour.

    "Blessed are they which are persecuted for their own self-righteousness' sake: for theirs is the Kingdom of "Ask Slashdot".

    "Blessed are the over-eager, who believe that Open Source is a social movement heralding the rise of a new generation: for they shall not realize that There Are No Sacred Cows.

    "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for the sake of your Favorite Operating System.

    "Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in Heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

    THIS IS THE WORD OF THE LORD

    • Re:Slashdot Beatitudes (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "Blessed are they who beleive in the business-model:

      1: Write free software.
      2: ?
      3: Profit!

      for their companies shall go out of business.

  • It should be noted... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Clue4All ( 580842 ) on Monday November 25, 2002 @02:10PM (#4752905) Homepage
    that the 3.0 article was written over a month ago, and Linus has since decided that call it 2.6. Not that the version number matters in any way whatsoever, but I'm sure people will continue to argue over it nonetheless.
  • I guess this guy must have written a pretty big Linux app to get such a lot of coverage. What does this "kernel" program do and where can I download it?

  • What kind of DRM support will there be? (Score:4, Funny)

    by joshua404 ( 590829 ) on Monday November 25, 2002 @02:12PM (#4752925)
    Do tell, please! Thanks!

    Signed,

    Walrus J. Retard, IV

  • code freeze date (Score:5, Funny)

    by greechneb ( 574646 ) on Monday November 25, 2002 @02:13PM (#4752936) Journal
    If he freezes the code for the 12th anniversary of getting his first computer for use with linux, one can only imagine what he gets his wife for their wedding anniversary.

  • linux 3.0? (Score:4, Funny)

    by edrugtrader ( 442064 ) on Monday November 25, 2002 @02:13PM (#4752939) Homepage
    i'll wait for linux 3.1... i hear there will be windowing build in then, with a way to exit to shell if you still need to use the command line
    • I heard linux 95 will kick everyone's ass

    • Re:linux 3.0? (Score:3, Funny)

      by edgrale ( 216858 )
      Don't forget about 3.11 - it comes with networking support, oh wait... ;)

      it's a joke, laugh

    • Sounds good, especially if they'd add the following lines:

      int sysreq_check_ram(long ram) {

      if (ram > 512) {

      sleep(5000);
      panic();

      } else {

      printf("Welcome to Linux XP!");

      }

      }
    • Oh no...

      I just thought that someone could put out a patch for Linux 3.1, something to "accelerate" graphics by moving many GUI parts from the X server in user-mode to something (a driver?) in kernel-mode...

      The truly scary part is, I can't rule it out! It actually could happen... (shudder)

      Yeah, it would probably be funny as hell to the guy who puts it out... but he'd be lucky to survive the backlash. Something like that just ain't cool.

      Maybe we could just skip over the 3 series and avoid all the MS/Windows references? Please?

  • Linux 3.0 (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 25, 2002 @02:14PM (#4752943)
    Will it have workgroup support? Or will that be Linux 3.11?

  • In a shocking announcement (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 25, 2002 @02:15PM (#4752946)
    Linus Torvalds announced that Linux 2.6 would be renamed Linux 9.0, and would be the "Most Advanced Linux Ever."

    One user was quoted as saying "All my friends and family use Linux" while another exclaimed "New Linux 9.0 is easier than ever!"

  • I've read up a bit on the details of 2.6 (Score:5, Funny)

    by ekrout ( 139379 ) on Monday November 25, 2002 @02:16PM (#4752954) Journal
    According to one source, "kernel 2.6 will address PHBs by including a 'boss key' that automatically switches the kernel to 'Fake Windows Mode'. In this mode, Linux will simulate the Windows XP-2005 environment, complete with Dancing Paperclips, bluescreens, and incessant reminders to sign up for a Microsoft Passport.

    Now, geeks will be able to install Linux on their company workstations without the knowledge of their PHBs. Productivity will skyrocket, hopefully earning them a fat raise."

    More details are available at http://humorix.org [humorix.org]

    I, for one, am quite excited about this, although I guess that depends on if any of you actually have a job at the moment ;-)

    Either way, I'm glad to see the kernel hackers working hard to fulfill our feature requests. Here's to a great 2.6!

    Cheers,
    -- Eric

  • What´s in and what´s out (Score:5, Informative)

    by Karpe ( 1147 ) on Monday November 25, 2002 @02:16PM (#4752956) Homepage
    To see whats already in 2.5, check kernel status [kernelnewbies.org]

  • I am glad but I also wish (Score:4, Interesting)

    by codepunk ( 167897 ) on Monday November 25, 2002 @02:16PM (#4752959)
    I am glad the mid level scsi stuff now works correctly with SAN environments but I wish opengfs and or ocfs had made it into the tree before the feature freeze. I guess for now I have to just resort to running a proprietary clustered file system.

  • Lame-o! (Score:3, Funny)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Monday November 25, 2002 @02:20PM (#4752995) Homepage Journal

    2.6? Pfff. FreeBSD is already working on 5.0 and OpenBSD already released 3.2. Therefore FreeBSD is almost *twice* as good as Linux and OpenBSD is about 25% better.

    Don't ask me to do the math as to how much better Windows 2000 is.


    • Re:Lame-o! (Score:4, Funny)

      by rlowe69 ( 74867 ) <ryanlowe_AThotmailDOTcom> on Monday November 25, 2002 @02:29PM (#4753072) Homepage
      Don't ask me to do the math as to how much better Windows 2000 is.

      According to the good ole MS Calculator (coincidently in Windows 2000), it is 769.23076923076923076923076923077 times better. :P

    • Re:Lame-o! (Score:3, Funny)

      by greechneb ( 574646 )
      Hmm

      Windows 2000 was NT 5.0 kernel therefore almost *twice as good as linux

      Windows XP is NT 5.1? so almost *twice as good as linux.

      That means that between two releases of windows, they stayed the same, and linux moved farther ahead, at least by my calculations!

      • Just remember, the first version of Windows NT was Windows NT 3.1 because they were pushing it as an upgrade from Windows 3.1. Therefore, it's really NT 3.1 and 3.0, so not that much ahead. :)

        Alex
    • I know it was a joke, but still: Nobody is going to convince me that Red Hat 8 is better than Debian 3.0

      (The punchline: Don't bother flaming me. You won't convince me. :P)

  • Ah, the memories (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ekrout ( 139379 ) on Monday November 25, 2002 @02:22PM (#4753021) Journal
    I'll never forget my first boot into the 1.x series many, many years ago.

    From that day on, I never looked at a computer the same way. Whenever friends would talk about the latest cool games or case modifications, I was never really interested; what truly grabbed my attention was exploring the depths of the Linux kernel and just learning, learning, learning.

    The rest is, as they say, history. I've gained a lot from using Linux, moreso than any other person or thing that I've used so far in my short life. With that being said, I decided to donate, once again, to Linux and its related movements just as a simple "Thank You" for all the time and dedication that so many, like Linus, put into the Free/Open software movement.

    Here are some quick donation links:
    - FSF [fsf.org]
    - Mandrake [linux-mandrake.com]
    - KDE [kde.org]
    - Apache [apache.org]

    • Re:Ah, the memories (Score:5, Funny)

      by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Monday November 25, 2002 @02:54PM (#4753244) Homepage Journal

      I'll never forget my first boot into the 1.x series many, many years ago.

      I hear you. My not-terribly-100%-compatible-Unisys PC clone is *still* booting. It's been stuck at this "ramdisk" line for about 9 years. Any idea how long it will be before I, too, can enjoy Linux?

  • How do I contact this linus guy? (Score:3, Funny)

    by dotgod ( 567913 ) on Monday November 25, 2002 @02:28PM (#4753061)
    I have a patch for this linux kernel thingie that I would like to submit that will be of interest to all Linux users. What this patch will do is inform you of discounts and special offers that you are elegible for. How can I submit this?
    • I have a patch for this linux kernel thingie that I would like to submit that will be of interest to all Linux users. What this patch will do is inform you of discounts and special offers that you are elegible for. How can I submit this?

      Oh, you're the guy behind GNUtor!

  • what is up? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tps12 ( 105590 ) on Monday November 25, 2002 @02:35PM (#4753107) Homepage Journal
    I just scanned through the discussion...every comment is either a dumb joke (sorry, I don't think talking about "Linux 3.11" is very clevar) or flamebait/trolling.

    What has happened to all of the serious users? Let's talk. I'm most interested in what the new kernel will be doing for next generation hardware (FireWire 2 and USB2, not to mention BlueTooth), the new VM, and improvements in latency a la the preemptible kernel patch.

    Also, the 2.4 series kernels already have so many configuration options that compiling the right kernel often takes several attempts. Anyone know how 2.6/3.0 (they are the same, right?) is going to manage kernel config as the number of modules skyrockets? Has Linus considered moving away from a monolithic kernel, or should we all just switch to HURD?

    • Re:what is up? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by 4of12 ( 97621 ) on Monday November 25, 2002 @03:02PM (#4753325) Homepage Journal

      Amen.

      I read the eWeek article about 2.6 and have surfed through the lkml to see what's going in and what's not.

      I see Hans Reiser making an impassioned plea to get ReiserFS 4.0 into 2.5, the EVMS team nobly accepting temporary exile in userland, and others griping that LVM won't be in 2.6 and have to wait until 3.0

      Given stuff that won't be in 2.6 and will be deferred until 3.0, what I want to know is:

      "What useful feature WON'T be in Linux 3.0? Will the Linux of 2005 be practically finished as an operating system?"

      • Re:what is up? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by William Tanksley ( 1752 ) on Monday November 25, 2002 @04:44PM (#4754203)
        No, there's plenty more to do. As a very simple example, the driver organization is still very much in flux; devfs is under fire, and alternates are springing up.

        On a higher level, the way we handle multiple processors could very well entirely change (if Larry McVoy has his way, and I think he's right). The result might be a kernel which runs very well on a single processor, but is perfectly scalable to thousands of processors.

        -Billy

    • Re:what is up? (Score:4, Informative)

      by iabervon ( 1971 ) on Monday November 25, 2002 @04:14PM (#4753999) Homepage Journal
      The kernel configuration system is turned into a library, which can then be used by a more user-friendly application. In addition, the configuration language has been changed a bit (now that there is only one piece of code that reads it) to allow the files to work better.

      There will probably soon be a program to set the configuration based on hardware detection, and then ask the user for values for everything that just depends on the user's preferences. This is really something that shouldn't be handled in the kernel tree, and the tools are now in place in the kernel tree to permit external programs to handle it. I expect that the other issue with an infinitely large tree (that you have to download it) will also be handled by external programs, which will be able to just get the configuration, let you configure the kernel with a lot of help, and then just download the files that you'll actually need.

    • Yeah, but imagine a be...no you're right, they are all stupid jokes.

      2.5 kernel has initial support for USB2, bluetooth is no longer experimental., dunno 'bout FireWire2. This is all here [kernelnewbies.org]

      There's some kind of totally rewritten kernel managment coming, should make it easier. Linus loves his monolithic kernel. HURD is still in it's infancy. I'm not switching until you do.

    • With regards to kernel config, there should be an option to compile EVERYTHING possibly compiled as a module, as a module. This way, you compile once, then just config your modules nicely. Also, configuring modules is easier, as you do it on module install, instead of at boot (it gives you a chance to try again)

      • Re:what is up? (Score:4, Informative)

        by rawshark ( 603493 ) on Monday November 25, 2002 @06:15PM (#4754886)
        With regards to kernel config, there should be an option to compile EVERYTHING possibly compiled as a module, as a module


        There is.

        I am not in front of my linux box right now, but in 2.5 you can do "make allmoduleconfig" or something like that, which will do what you want. I do not remember the exact make target, but you can do a "make help"

        I do not believe this is in 2.4.

        One caveat for newbies is that the code for the filesystem where your modules is located should not be compiled as a module. The kernel has to mount the filesystem before loading the module, and if it can't load the module for the filesystem, well, you get the picture.

        Hope this helps.

    • Re:what is up? (Score:2, Informative)

      by iggymanz ( 596061 )
      What benefits would you expect from a microthreaded kernel?

      I switched from a monolithic one (SunOS 4.1.1B) to a microthreaded one (Solaris 2.5) on a Sparc 2 and my software ran at least 25% slower. I had a similar SPEEDUP switching from Solaris 2.6 to OpenBSD 2.9 on my Sparc 5

      I could just imagine the benefits of all that kewl message passing on a constipated Intel architecture......do we hear 30% slowdown? 35%?
    • "I just scanned through the discussion...every comment is either a dumb joke (sorry, I don't think talking about "Linux 3.11" is very clevar) or flamebait/trolling."
      Yet you have no problem with the karma joke in your sig?

      "What has happened to all of the serious users? "
      Slashdot has pissed most of them(us?) off. If they dont take their job seriously (look at all the articles they post without reading--the ones that specificly ask not to be slashdotted), why should we act seriously?
      Slashdot has long since been ruined. The obvious jokes are just made for easy karma.

  • scalability issues (Score:3, Interesting)

    by thoolihan ( 611712 ) on Monday November 25, 2002 @02:35PM (#4753109) Homepage
    It's good to see the focus on issues that effect business servers with heavy load. As a desktop user it's easy to think otherwise, but...

    The kernel can support most things a desktop user needs. It's the programs on top that need to be beefed up (and drivers).

    As for winning the desktop war (if that interests you) then corporate is the way to start. I see tons of articles on how to get average middle aged user to install linux. It can do everything in the world, but if they don't use it at work, most people won't switch. ("I have to know windows at work, why learn anything else").

    The more high power servers people see running free software (and maybe eventually their desktop) at work, the more likely they are to adopt it.

    And especially in the realm of *free* software, user base is important.

    -T

  • The Tao of Linux (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 25, 2002 @02:38PM (#4753129)
    Something forms itself from the silent void of the empty mailing lists and the noisy chaos of the crowded mailing lists. It shapes and protects us, it entertains and challenges us, it aids us in our journey through the ether world of software. It is mysterious; it is at once source code and yet object code. I do not know the name, thus I will call it the Tao of Linux.

    If the Tao is great, then the box is stable. If the box is stable, then the server is secure. If the server is secure, then the data is safe. If the data is safe, then the users are happy.

    In the beginning there was chaos in Unix.

    Tanenbaum gave birth to MINIX. MINIX did not have the Tao.
    MINIX gave birth to Linux 0.1 and it had promise.
    Linux gave birth to v1.3 and it was good.
    v1.3 gave birth to v2.0 and it was better.

    Linux has evolved greatly from its distant cousins of the old. Linux is embodied by the Tao.

    The wise user is told about the Tao and contributes to it. The average user is told about the Tao and compiles it. The foolish user is told about the Tao and laughs and asks who needs it.
    If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao.
    Wisdom leads to good code, but experience leads to good use of that code.

    The master Cox once dreamed that he was a Kernel. When he awoke he exclaimed: "I don't know whether I am Cox dreaming that I am a Kernel, or a Kernel dreaming that I am Cox!"
    The master Linus then said: "The Tao envelopes you. You shall create great code for Linux."
    "On the contrary," said Cox, "The Tao has already created the code, I will only have to find it and write it down."

    A master was explaining the nature of the Tao to one of his students:
    "Is the Tao in the VM subsystem?" he asked. "Yes," replied the master.
    "Is the Tao in the scheduler?" he queried again. "The Tao is in the scheduler."
    "Is the Tao even in the modules?". "It is even in the modules," said the master.
    "Is the Tao in the Low-Latency Patch?"
    The master frowned and was silent for much time.
    "You fail to understand the Tao. Go away."

    The Tao is the yin and the yang. It is the good and the evil, it is everything and yet it is nothing, it is the beginning and the end.

    The Tao was there at the kernel compile, and it will be there when the kernel panics.

    A novice user once asked a master: "Why compile in C when C++ is more popular?"
    "Why a monolythic kernel when Mach is more popular?"
    "And why use ReiserFS when ext2 is more popular?"

    The master sighed and replied: "Why run Unix when NT is more popular?"
    The user was enlightened.

    A frustrated user once asked a master: "My kernel has panicked, should I post to lkml?"
    "No," replied the master, "You will only bother the Tao."
    "Should I rm -rf?"
    "No, you will have wasted the Tao's time."
    "Well should I search the web?"
    "You will search for all eternity," said the master.
    "Perhaps I should try FreeBSD?"
    "Then you will have disgraced the Tao."
    "I suppose I could try gdb," said the user.
    The master smiled and replied: "Then you will have made the Tao stronger."

    A stubborn user once told a master: "I run version 2.2. I always have, and I always will."
    The master replied: "You are foolish and do not understand the Tao. The Tao is dynamic and ever changing. Linux strives for the perfection that is the Tao. It flows from version to version with peace."

    "So my Linux does not have the Tao, so what?" said the foolish user. "Oh your Linux is of the Tao," said the master. "However, the Tao of Linux follows the Tao of the C library. One day the C library will change, and your Linux will be left behind." The user was silent.

    An angry user once yelled at a master:

    "My Linux has panicked! What lousy software it is, I hate it so!"
    "You are insulting the Tao," said the master. "The Tao is everywhere bringing order to hundreds of networks, aiding thousands of users, and fighting that of which we call the 'lame.' Do not disrespect the Tao; however, the Tao will forgive you."

    "I apologize," said the user, "And I will be more forgiving the next time the Tao fails me."

    "The Tao has not failed you, it is you that has failed the Tao," said the master. "The Tao is perfect."
    The Tao decides if a kernel shall compile, or if it shall abort.
    The Tao decides if a kernel shall boot, or if it shall freeze.
    The Tao decides if a kernel shall run, or if it shall panic.
    But, the Tao does not decide if a box will have no hardware failures. That is a mystery to everyone.

    A young master once approached an old master: "I have a LUG for Linux help. But, I fail to answer my students' problems; they are above me."
    The master replied: "Have you taught them of the Tao?" he asked. "How it brings together man and software, yet how it distances them apart; how if flows throughout Linux and transcends its essence?"
    "No," exclaimed the apprentice, "These people cannot even get the source untarred."
    "Oh, said the master, "In that case, tell them to RTFM."

    A master watched as an ambitious user reconstructed his Linux.

    "I shall make every bit encrypted," the user said. "I shall use 2048 bit keys, three different algorithms, and make multiple passes."
    The master replied: "I think it is unwise."
    "Why?" asked the user. "Will my encryption harm the mighty Tao, which gives Linux life and creates the balance between kernel and processes? The mighty Tao, which is the thread that binds the modules and links them with the core? The mighty Tao, which safely guides the TCP/IP packets to and from the network card?"
    "No," said the master, "It will hog too much cpu."

    The core is like the part of the mind that is static. It is programmed at a child's creation and cannot be changed unless a new child is made; unless a new kernel is compiled.
    The modules are like the part of the mind that is dynamic. It is reprogrammed every time one learns new knowledge; every time one learns better code.
    One is yin, the other yang. Each is nothing without the other.

    A novice came to lkml and inquired to all the masters there: "I wish to become a master. Must I memorize the Linux header files?"
    "No," replied a master.
    "Must I submit code to Bitkeeper?"
    "No," replied the master.
    "Must I meditate daily and dedicate my life to Linux?"
    "No," replied the master again.
    "Must I go on a quest to ponder the meaning of the Tao?"
    "No. A master is nothing more than a student who knows something of which he can teach to other students."
    The novice understood.
    And thus said the master:
    "It is the way of the Tao."

    A user came to a master who had great status in lkml. The user asked the master: "Which is easier: implementing new features to the kernel or documenting them?"
    "Implementing new features," replied the master.
    The confused user then exclaimed:
    "Surely it is easier to write a few sentences in the man page than it is to write pages of code without error?"
    "Not so," said the master. "When coding, the Tao of Linux opens my eyes wide and allows me to see beyond the code, to let the source flow from my fingers, to implement without flaw. When documenting, however, all I have to work with is a C in high school English."

    He who compiles from the stable tree is stubborn
    and unwilling to change, but is guaranteed reliability.
    He who compiles from the current tree is wise but perhaps too conformist, but is guaranteed steadiness.
    He who compiles from the unstable tree is adventurous and is guaranteed new innovations: some good, some bad.
    He who compiles straight from Bitkeeper is brave but guaranteed turbulence.
    They are all of the Tao. One shall respect the old, and debug the new; none shall argue over which is greatest.

    There once was a user who scripted in Perl: "Look at what I have to work with here," he said to a master of core, "My code is interpreted dynamically, the syntax is unique and simple, I have sockets, strings, arrays, and everything I could ever need. Why don't you stop meddling in C and come join me?"
    The C programmer described his reasoning to the scripter: "Script is to C as ebonics is to Latin. If the scripter does not grow beyond that of which he scripts, he will surely [die]. Besides, without C, how can there be script?"
    The scripter was enlightened, and the two became close friends.

    It's time for you to leave.

  • Ziff Davis: M$ whores? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by the_skuncle ( 443942 ) <skuncle@s[ ]cle.com ['kun' in gap]> on Monday November 25, 2002 @02:40PM (#4753145) Homepage
    Every time I read a ZiffDavis [eweek] article, I am amazed that they so blatantly put a pro-Micro$oft/Anti-Linux spin on it.

    For example, a recent article says CERT issued 29 alerts, 16 of which were for Linux/Open Source apps, and only 9 for M$'s bloated crashing system. It doesn't say that most of the alerts for Linux were for local vulnerabilities except for OpenSSH and Apache, and that most of the M$ alerts were for remote exploits like scripting vulnerabilities in IIS, Outlook, IExplore...

    Makes ya wonder.
    • The magazine is paid by the advertisers, so naturally they are all about pushing the latest and greatest to people who have no idea what they want.
      Security is a complicated subject and counting vulnerabilities is taken to be an accomplishment.
      My own take on the recent fun&games is that Linux/Open Source (and especially *BSD) is much more secure. Open Source tends to upplay vulnerabilities instead of downplaying them. (How else do you get people to patch their systems?).
      The counts have to be taken in context. An airline crashes, it makes world headlines. An automobile crashes, it barely makes the local newspaper. OpenBSD's 1 remote exploit in however many years is actually a stronger statement than the previous no remote exploits. (Think about it;)
      The first OpenSSH exploits, IIRC, were against FreeBSD and OpenBSD. Why *BSD? That reads too much like "Finally an opening. Take advantage while you still can." Bluntly, if you miss one Microsoft Windows vulnerability, there are and will continue to be plenty more chances.
      Since it's Open Source, there are plenty of variants around. You can even make your own. Security by obscurity *can* work, but it does require obscurity. (Think about it;). That's an argument for compiling your own kernel. Change something, anything. Anything that depends on exact displacements will have a hard time coping.

  • What is up with the LVM? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by emil ( 695 ) on Monday November 25, 2002 @02:40PM (#4753151)

    Why isn't Sistina's LVM making it into the kernel? SUSE has been including it as standard in their distribution for some time.

    I don't track the LKML at all. I'm curious why XFS made it in, but LVM did not.

    • Re:What is up with the LVM? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Omnifarious ( 11933 ) <eric-slashNO@SPAMomnifarious.org> on Monday November 25, 2002 @03:17PM (#4753505) Homepage Journal

      LVM version 1 is already in the kernel, and has been there for some time. LVM version 2, which is much better written, uses a fairly generic kernel driver called 'device mapper' and a new set of userspace utilities. It looks like it's set for Linux 2.6.

      I use LVM extensively at home. It's designed for enterprises, but it's extremely helpful at home for compartmentalizing files to particular filesystems to make it easier to move then around. It's so nice to be able to move a particular part of the filesystem by dd'ing it through nc (netcat). I do this to back things up before I make major changes.

    • Re:What is up with the LVM? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Steve Hamlin ( 29353 ) on Monday November 25, 2002 @04:23PM (#4754061) Homepage

      According to Kernel Trap [kerneltrap.org], Linus merged the "device mapper" code, the kernel component of Sistina's LVM2 volume manager, around 2.5.45.

      In addition, the EVMS team then recognized [kerneltrap.org] the implication of this decision vis-a-vis the inclusion of EVMS in Linus' tree in the near future, and decided that a significant rewrite of some of their code was in order.

      "As many of you may know by now, the 2.5 kernel feature freeze has come and gone, and it seems clear that the EVMS kernel driver is not going to be included. With this in mind, we have decided to rework the EVMS user-space administration tools (the Engine) to work with existing drivers currently in the kernel, including (but not necessarily limited to) device mapper and MD."

      This announcement was met with TONS of positive praise on lkml: for the actual technical decision, for the mature and pleasant manner in which it was handled, and for the public policy of removing duplication of kernel code in general, simplifying the MD/device mapper code specifically.

      Finally, Alan Cox stated about 2.4:

      "I plan to try and push LVM2 to Marcelo after the next release. Whether he will take it I don't know. Obviously its good to have the ability to move back nicely to older kernels."

    • Re:What is up with the LVM? (Score:4, Informative)

      by pwagland ( 472537 ) on Monday November 25, 2002 @04:47PM (#4754234) Journal
      Why isn't Sistina's LVM making it into the kernel? SUSE has been including it as standard in their distribution for some time.
      According to these [kerneltrap.org] articles [kernelnewbies.org] LVM2 has made it into the 2.5 development series, as of 2.5.45 [kerneltrap.org]. Thus, it is likely to also be in 2.6.....

  • the right tool (Score:2, Interesting)

    by b17bmbr ( 608864 )
    if i remember correctly, linux was built to be PC unix. hmmm...so it still isn't ready to go on big iron. BFD. its strength is clustering, like at buffalo university. so just use the right tool for the job. though it does seem that the trend is toward distributed/clustered computing. which fits in perfectly with linux. how about instead of complaining that the kernel doesn't have this or that, get the source, and write your own LVM.

  • LVM is included in 2.6 (Score:5, Informative)

    by crsm ( 21260 ) on Monday November 25, 2002 @03:45PM (#4753761)
    To all of those worried about LVM: 2.6 will include a LVM implementation. The EVMS won't make it though.

    The story is that 2.4 included LVM1 (I am running it right now on my RH8 box) which had some restrictions and were generally regarded as a kludge. For the 2.6 kernel two competing replacements arised: LVM2 and EVMS. LVM2 is basicly a rewrite of LVM1 while EVMS is an entirely different beast aimed at the BIG IRON in the datacenters. After some (heated) discussion on LKML Linus decided to include LVM2 and scrap EVMS.

    The reaction from the EVMS team (sponsered by IBM) was noble: They decided to remove their kernel-land code and rewrite their user-land utilities to use the winning LVM2 kernel interface and create a win-win situation for everyone. Kernel traffic covered the story here [zork.net] and Linux Weekly News made a mention of it here [lwn.net].
  • I really wish it were possible to get the CryptoAPI merged into the full kernel. I've been compiling kernels without problems since the 1.2 series, but CryptoAPI patches are more convoluted than any other patch series I've ever tried.

    Ah, to live in a sane world, with sane governments...
    • I stand corrected. As of 2.5.45, which is new enough for me to not have heard of it, and not mentioned on the main kerneli.org site.

      *snif* I could cry. Thanks, Linux and the CryptoAPI people at http://www.kerneli.org

    • Gentoo may be for you (Score:4, Informative)

      by FreeUser ( 11483 ) on Monday November 25, 2002 @05:19PM (#4754474)
      I really wish it were possible to get the CryptoAPI merged into the full kernel. I've been compiling kernels without problems since the 1.2 series, but CryptoAPI patches are more convoluted than any other patch series I've ever tried.

      Given that you're no stranger to either GNU/Linux or compiling the Linux kernel, you may want to take a look at the source-based Gentoo distribution. Aside from making download and compilation from the author's tarballs trivial via the portage system (emerge rsync ; emerge [packagename]), the gentoo-sources kernel has numerous additional patches, including the crypto-api patches.

      emerge rsync ; emerge gentoo-sources, followed by the usual cd /usr/src/linux; make menuconfig, etc. will bet you the Crypto API patch, as well as the low latency/preempt patches, grsecurity patches, and so on. All nicely applied already, and ready for you to compile and use.

      Perhaps not as nice as if they'd made it into the feature freeze for 2.6, but a lot easier than the process you describe.

Slashdot Top Deals

A committee takes root and grows, it flowers, wilts and dies, scattering the seed from which other committees will bloom. -- Parkinson

Close