Bug#411943: partman-lvm: inconsistent usage of unit symbols for, decimal and binary multiples - Debian

This is a discussion on Bug#411943: partman-lvm: inconsistent usage of unit symbols for, decimal and binary multiples - Debian ; I think this bug is quite high priority and should definitely be fixed for Lenny. I recently installed from a debian installer snapshot and manually partitioning LVM was nearly impossible. It may not make much of a difference when you're ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Bug#411943: partman-lvm: inconsistent usage of unit symbols for, decimal and binary multiples

  1. Bug#411943: partman-lvm: inconsistent usage of unit symbols for, decimal and binary multiples

    I think this bug is quite high priority and should definitely be fixed
    for Lenny. I recently installed from a debian installer snapshot and
    manually partitioning LVM was nearly impossible. It may not make much of
    a difference when you're partitioning 20 GB or so, but the drive I was
    partitioning was 300 GB. You're forced to play "guess and check" and
    given the inefficiencies of a text installer it's painful.

    I ended up partitioning in a spare rescue cd I had and then restarted
    the whole installation process, completely bypassing the whole issue.



    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  2. Bug#411943: partman-lvm: size of new LVs must be given in multiple of 1024 instead of 1000

    tags 411943 + patch
    thanks

    On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 06:09:33AM -0400, Avery Fay wrote:
    > I think this bug is quite high priority and should definitely be fixed
    > for Lenny. I recently installed from a debian installer snapshot and
    > manually partitioning LVM was nearly impossible. It may not make much of
    > a difference when you're partitioning 20 GB or so, but the drive I was
    > partitioning was 300 GB. You're forced to play "guess and check" and
    > given the inefficiencies of a text installer it's painful.


    The attached patch should fix the issue. Details in its header.

    PS: The changelogs might be quite bogus as I decided to tackle this
    issue while working on other aspects of partman-lvm.

    Cheers,
    --
    Jérémy Bobbio .''`.
    lunar@debian.org : :Ⓐ : # apt-get install anarchism
    `. `'`
    `-

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFIgncQ2PUjs9fQ72URAj6aAKDJrWL/94bT+LZmxGgD8KZB2rT6nQCffne+
    YRss9Q5meO69ClYZVAjNluU=
    =1fWL
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  3. Processed: Re: Bug#411943: partman-lvm: size of new LVs must be given in multiple of 1024 instead of 1000

    Processing commands for control@bugs.debian.org:

    > tags 411943 + patch

    Bug#411943: partman-lvm: size of new LVs must be given in multiple of 1024 instead of 1000
    There were no tags set.
    Bug#437016: Uses different value to GB then rest of partman
    Bug#471764: partman-lvm: cannot set a size to lvm partition (size 0 is invalid)
    Tags added: patch

    > thanks

    Stopping processing here.

    Please contact me if you need assistance.

    Debian bug tracking system administrator
    (administrator, Debian Bugs database)


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  4. Bug#411943: partman-lvm: size of new LVs must be given in multiple of 1024 instead of 1000

    On Sunday 20 July 2008, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
    > The attached patch should fix the issue. Details in its header.


    Doesn't this introduce an inconsistency between what is input and what is
    displayed in the "Current LVM configuration" dialog?

    I'm not sure that we should be fixing such minor issues at this point.
    Especially when it's so easy to get things subtly wrong or introduce new
    inconsistencies.



    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  5. Bug#411943: partman-lvm: size of new LVs must be given in multiple of 1024 instead of 1000

    On Sunday 20 July 2008, I wrote:
    > On Sunday 20 July 2008, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
    > > The attached patch should fix the issue. Details in its header.

    >
    > Doesn't this introduce an inconsistency between what is input and what
    > is displayed in the "Current LVM configuration" dialog?


    Consistency between D-I and commands given from shell is another factor to
    take into account. Fact is that LVM by default uses binary-based units
    while e.g. disk manufacturers and fdisk use SI units. Partman is
    currently consistent with that. It may not be internally consistent, but
    it may also be just what some users (e.g. experienced sysadmins) expect.

    The problem in this BR is basically that the units for the displayed
    default size currently do not match the how the units that are input are
    used, which definitely is a bug and one that your patch does seem to fix.
    But it could also be solved by having the proposed value displayed in
    binary-based units...

    This also somewhat clashes with Robert's patch in #471323, which goes the
    other direction.

    I'd much rather see an inventory of what partman does _as a whole_ and a
    proposal/discussion how we can make it consistent and clear to the user
    what units are used/expected/displayed for partman _as a whole_ than to
    introduce such "random" changes based on a single aspect of the problem.

    I do agree there is a (fairly big) consistency problem, but I'm not sure
    this is the way nor the time to fix it.



    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  6. Bug#411943: partman-lvm: size of new LVs must be given in multiple of 1024 instead of 1000

    On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 01:39:59PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
    > Consistency between D-I and commands given from shell is another factor to
    > take into account. Fact is that LVM by default uses binary-based units
    > while e.g. disk manufacturers and fdisk use SI units. Partman is
    > currently consistent with that. It may not be internally consistent, but
    > it may also be just what some users (e.g. experienced sysadmins) expect.


    LVM tools default that display sizes to binary units instead of SI
    units. So on a command line, IMHO, an experienced sysadmin would use
    other LVM tools to create PVs, VGs and LVs together with the ones that
    would display the current status. As most people rarely bother to
    specify "--units M", I don't really see that as an issue.

    > I'd much rather see an inventory of what partman does _as a whole_ and a
    > proposal/discussion how we can make it consistent and clear to the user
    > what units are used/expected/displayed for partman _as a whole_ than to
    > introduce such "random" changes based on a single aspect of the problem.


    partman reference seems to be given by longint2human() and
    human2longint(), defined in lib/base.sh. Which is why I decided to use
    them to as the basis for calculation in the proposed patch.

    Cheers,
    --
    Jérémy Bobbio .''`.
    lunar@debian.org : :Ⓐ : # apt-get install anarchism
    `. `'`
    `-

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFIg1Ja2PUjs9fQ72URAjWLAJ9WLJEnqYp+aUXVUt6uZ3 WQ8Hfy6gCgxRrP
    e/z8vCanBm3uIplPZwdlIlk=
    =P+mE
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  7. Bug#411943: partman-lvm: size of new LVs must be given in multiple of 1024 instead of 1000

    On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 01:13:22PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
    > On Sunday 20 July 2008, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
    > > The attached patch should fix the issue. Details in its header.

    >
    > Doesn't this introduce an inconsistency between what is input and what is
    > displayed in the "Current LVM configuration" dialog?


    No. The units showed in the "Current LVM configuration" dialog are
    retrieved by using the "--units M" flag of lvm tools. The capital 'M'
    here specify that the unit should be in S.I. units, same as the rest of
    partman.

    > I'm not sure that we should be fixing such minor issues at this point.
    > Especially when it's so easy to get things subtly wrong or introduce new
    > inconsistencies.


    It's not exactly minor, IMHO: while creating a new Logical Volume, you
    have to recalculate every other numbers by hand as all other components
    of partman uses S.I units instead of binary units.

    Cheers,
    --
    Jérémy Bobbio .''`.
    lunar@debian.org : :Ⓐ : # apt-get install anarchism
    `. `'`
    `-

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFIg1Db2PUjs9fQ72URAi04AKCwFVNFGNlbIni9MqlErW N94VSPUQCgvbEh
    aY7UaOPIikEqmRpH5dbLazI=
    =eJgi
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  8. Bug#411943: partman-lvm: size of new LVs must be given in multiple of 1024 instead of 1000

    On Sunday 20 July 2008, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
    > It's not exactly minor, IMHO: while creating a new Logical Volume, you
    > have to recalculate every other numbers by hand as all other components
    > of partman uses S.I units instead of binary units.


    OK. If you're happy with it and it has had sufficient testing I have no
    objection.



    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

+ Reply to Thread