Debian Bug report logs - #490787
RFA: evms -- Enterprise Volume Management System

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Steinar H. Gunderson" <sgunderson@bigfoot.com>

To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: RFA: evms -- Enterprise Volume Management System

Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:53:56 +0200

Package: wnpp
Severity: normal

Hi,

I've now removed EVMS from the last of my machines. The package was a
good idea in its time, but sadly has been neglected by upstream over the
last five years or so, and there's currently little hope that upstream
development will ever resume unless someone else than IBM takes up the
challenge.

The package still works, and there are no RC bugs. It should be in
reasonable shape except for that.

If nobody steps up to maintain this, I'll request removal from the
archive in a week, so we won't be burdened by another package for lenny.


The package description is:
 The EVMS project provides unparalleled flexibility and extensibility
 in managing storage. This project represents a new approach to
 logical volume management. The architecture introduces a plug-in
 model that allows for easy expansion or customization of various
 levels of volume management.
 .
 In order to make full use of it, you must use a kernel which
 includes the EVMS patch, available in the kernel-patch-evms package.
 .
 This package contains core infrastructure for EVMS, and the utilities
 evms_rediscover, evms_devnode_fixup, evms_info_level, evms_metadata_backup
 and evms_metadata_restore.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: lenny/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.20.4
Locale: LANG=en_DK.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_DK.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash

Message #10 received at 490787@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bernd Zeimetz <bernd@bzed.de>

To: "Steinar H. Gunderson" <sgunderson@bigfoot.com>, 490787@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#490787: RFA: evms -- Enterprise Volume Management System

Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 04:32:55 +0200

Hi,

> I've now removed EVMS from the last of my machines. The package was a
> good idea in its time, but sadly has been neglected by upstream over the
> last five years or so, and there's currently little hope that upstream
> development will ever resume unless someone else than IBM takes up the
> challenge.

....which is a shame for IBM. EVMS worked (and I guess still works, but
I've removed it months ago for the same reasons as Steinar) very well.
The upstream developers spent a lot of energy into moving from the "old"
evms code towards supporting lvm, md and dm, it would be really sad if
this effort would be thrown away. EVMS could make volume management an
easy task for the "non-admin" type of user, if somebody would spend some
time into it. Not to forget that it manages to handle almost all weird
stuff you can do with disks and volumes.

Steinar, thanks for maintaining it during the last years!

Cheers,

Bernd

-- 
 Bernd Zeimetz                           Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 GPG Fingerprint: 06C8 C9A2 EAAD E37E 5B2C BE93 067A AD04 C93B FF79

Message #15 received at 490787-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Frank Lichtenheld <djpig@debian.org>

To: 490787-done@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#490787: RFA: evms -- Enterprise Volume Management System

Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 03:04:46 +0200

On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 12:53:56PM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> I've now removed EVMS from the last of my machines. The package was a
> good idea in its time, but sadly has been neglected by upstream over the
> last five years or so, and there's currently little hope that upstream
> development will ever resume unless someone else than IBM takes up the
> challenge.
> 
> The package still works, and there are no RC bugs. It should be in
> reasonable shape except for that.
> 
> If nobody steps up to maintain this, I'll request removal from the
> archive in a week, so we won't be burdened by another package for lenny.

Closing this WNPP bug since evms was removed.

Gruesse,
-- 
Frank Lichtenheld <djpig@debian.org>
www: http://www.djpig.de/

Message #24 received at 490787@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.com.au>

To: 490787@bugs.debian.org

Subject: replacement for evms?

Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:12:30 +0100

Packages like cman and clvm (Red Hat's cluster LVM) are available in 
Debian, is this the recommended enterprise solution now?  It would be 
good to point people in the right direction, and let them know what is 
the strategic solution for Debian.

The wiki page  http://wiki.debian.org/EVMS states that `you probably 
don't want to go down this road', but doesn't really suggest any 
alternatives.

The `Short' description, `An LVM + SoftwareRAID + Filesystem all-in-one 
userspace system solution.', really doesn't do justice to EVMS's 
enterprise features (such as cluster safe operation) that are completely 
lacking from LVM.

Also, the comment that `EVMS was a good idea in it's time' suggests that 
EVMS's features are no long relevant - for many enterprise users, the 
benefits offered by EVMS when compared to LVM are just as important today.

While it's quite fair to decide that the lack of upstream support is a 
good reason not to continue maintaining it in Debian, it would be useful 
if you could clarify whether there is a recommended alternative for some 
of the use cases that EVMS fulfills.  Adding such comments to the wiki 
and/or this RFA might help people who come across this as they decide 
whether it is a package they want to adopt, or whether there are better 
solutions for them.

An example of EVMS functionality that is not present in LVM: cluster 
safe access to a volume group, e.g. several hosts have shared access to 
a VG (through fibre channel), and each host mounts different volumes in 
the VG.  Using LVM, all the hosts have to be shutdown before making 
meta-data changes (e.g. adding a new LV).  With EVMS, however, it should 
be safe to add a new LV while other hosts are using the same volume group.

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.