Talk:Logical volume management

message: What is an LE? All these acromyms should be explained, or better yet, in an encyclopedia, expanded to thier full form:
LV, PE, PV, PVG.  The shortened version is easy on the writer, harder on the reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbeeker (talk • contribs) 
:I disagree they should be expanded. It would be confusing when using any lvm management tools. A reference section yes, but expanding these in all cases is going to cause confusion to anyone reading and then using lvm utilities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.84.5.210 (talk • contribs) 
::Also, what is the relationship between Volume Groups (VGs) and Logical Volumes (LVs). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.158.168.198 (talk • contribs) 
:::The HOWTO link should be able to explain this in more detail now. What about migrating more info. from the HOWTO into this page? Sasank 04:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just moved the Terminology section to the top and expanded it. --Unixguy 13:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: As of now, the article is very tiring to read with the use of many similar abbreviations. I'd highly suggest expanding the acronyms; if there's need for a short outline using the acronyms, it should be an additional section, not the main description body. From a user perspective, there seems to be little use in using the abbreviations as they map clearly from their long name to the acronym (especially for people actually working with the system, i.e. being familiar with the acronyms); in contrast, for an inexperienced person trying to understand the concept, the acronyms are quite confusing due to being very similar. Golan2781 (talk) 09:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  LE and other acronyms like PE, PV, and VG 

message: I am not sure but doesn't Vista allow growing/spanning of LV and allocating unallocated space to any PV?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.128.180.131 (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doesn't Vista add Allocate anywhere? 

message: I think it would be neccessary to point out features like mirror policies (PVG-strict mirroring or whatever the volume manager calls it), as most people are unaware how deeply linux LVM lacks in these areas. it is not a point of flaming it, but people need to be aware to be able to plan their setups more wisely. also snapshots or ability to resync single PE / Plexes are areas with major differences between all the different volume managers.
lastly, EVMS is SO dead.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.135.62.109 (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feature differences 

message: The FreeBSD volume management framework is also worth an entry, maybe someone knows enough about it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.135.62.109 (talk) 18:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  GEOM 

message: With Moutain Lion, Core storage has gain new uses :
It for instance enable Fusion Drive.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.158.74.90 (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Core Storage Evolution 

message: Currently, Volume group article is a very short stub, and as such is should be merged into  section.  This section already contains a much better explanation of logical volumes, together with providing a much broader context.  Thoughts? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Logical Volume Management" article covers a larger array of volume management than just Linux LVM. There's already an article about Linux LVM that seems to contain most of this information. I would recommend just setting up a redirect from this page to the Linux LVM page since I don't think VG's have enough to them to warrant an entire page on their own. A section maybe, but you'd be hard press to fill an entire page. 152.16.191.70 (talk) 21:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for your input, let's see if anyone else wants to weigh in. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Given how long it was between when this was initially proposed and now (approx. 5 months) I don't think there's going to be much input. Given how little is in the mentioned article, would there be an issue to just going ahead and doing it now? 152.16.191.70 (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  There should be no issues, but please perform all steps described in WP:PROMERGE. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Volume group merger proposal