wondering that here are 13 postings about loopdevice limitation, but nobody giving any comment about dm-loop ( http://sources.redhat.com/lvm2/wiki/DMLoop ), which is a solution for this problem ......
tomas, you should spend that money to bryn! ;) regards roland > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Gesendet: 22.03.07 14:53:19 > An: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Betreff: Re: max_loop limit > oh - i forgot sending this to the list, since this was copy&paste via > webmailer..... > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Gesendet: 22.03.07 14:42:45 > > An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Betreff: Re: max_loop limit > > > Hi Tomas, > > > > you`re completely right. > > > > I have had this problem of loopdev number limitation for years, but i think > > there is a better solution besides your patch. > > > > Some new module has been created for this and being announced on dm-devel > > mailinglist : > > > > dm-loop - the device mapper loopback target. > > > > See http://sources.redhat.com/lvm2/wiki/DMLoop for further information. > > > > It can be used as a 1:1 replacement for classic loop and should (?) > > probably be ready for mainline in the not too far future. (i cannot tell, > > but it works good for me!) > > > > Typically, you need to use dm-setup to setup device-mapper targets, but > > dm-setup has got support for dm-loop, so it`s as easy as 1-2-3 to replace > > "losetup ...." with "dmlosetup" alias for dm-setup. > > > > Feel free to test it and give feedback ! > > > > regards > > Roland > > > > ps: > > dm-loop-config.patch is being linked wrong in the wiki - this is the right > > one: > > http://sources.redhat.com/lvm2/wiki/DMLoop?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=dm-loop-config.patch > > > > > > > > > 255 loop devices are insufficient? What kind of scenario do you have > > > in mind? > > > > > > > > > > Thank you very much for replying. > > > > In 1981, Bill Gates said that 64KB of memory is enough for everybody. > > And you know how much RAM do you have right now. :) > > > > Every limit is bad. The limit of 255 loop devices has been introduced > > years ago, in the times when minor device number has been limited by > > 255. Nowadays, there is no such limitation. > > > > There are many possible/reasonable uses for more than 255 loop devices. > > For example CD/ISO server. My project, Slax Linux live, is based on > > modular approach where many parts of the root filesystem are stored > > separately in compressed read-only loop files, and are mounted and > > unioned to a single root by using union fs (aufs). > > > > The question is not "Why do we need more than 255 loops?". > > The question should be "Why do we need the hardcoded 255-limit in kernel > > while there is no reason for it at all?" > > > > My patch simply removes the hardcoded limitation. > > > > > > Tomas M > > slax.org > > _______________________________________________________________ SMS schreiben mit WEB.DE FreeMail - einfach, schnell und kostenguenstig. Jetzt gleich testen! http://f.web.de/?mc=021192 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
