ubiquity lvm/luks

[Matthew Paul Thomas]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote on 14/06/12 10:29:
> ...
> 
> On 12/06/12 11:36, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
> 
> ...
>> Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote on 08/06/12 12:13:
> ...
>>> 
>>> - checkboxes for LVM & Encrypted LVM
> ...
>> 
>> If either of these were mentioned in the automatic partitioning 
>> process, they couldn't be understandable without being explained 
>> in so much detail that it would be distracting.
> 
> =/ yeah those checkboxes are not the best. One of the requirements 
> is feature parity with the alternative/server installer. Those
> CD's offer LVM2 or LVM2+LUKS installations with a one click
> difference, plus password setup for encryption.
> 
> cjwatson, did say on IRC, that if LVM2 or LVM2+LUKS are offered, it
> should be on automatic partitioning page. As I understand it, this
> is because most of the automatic options (e.g. use whole disk, 
> resize windows and use the rest of the disk, etc.), can optionally 
> have LVM2 or LVM2+LUKS.

For those not following along on #ubuntu-installer: The current plan
is that we will start with LVM just in the advanced partitioner. That
will bring us to feature parity, opting for completeness over ease of
use. Later, once any kinks are worked out, we can offer LVM2+LUKS for
the various automatic partitioning options.

>> We could add encryption to the automatic partitioning process in
>>  future, but it would need to be a nicer sort -- with the option 
>> to use your login password as the password, and multiple
>> recovery keys, and things like that.
> 
> It's insecure in my opinion to use login password same as 
> encryption password. In larger deployments your password will be 
> centrally managed via LDAP, while the machine encryption
> passphrase will be different. The machine passphrase should be
> generally very long.

Understood.

> ...
> 
>> I have started on the LVM design in the installer specification.
>>  
>> <https://docs.google.com/a/canonical.com/document/d/1bZ4yQIVgGaUGSYu3qiUHnQt3ieBZoqunP_DcleHCr3I/edit#heading=h.v8wi3omt1z0>
>>
>>
>>
>>  As I understand it, the tasks we need to present are:
>> 
>> *   creating an LVM volume from two or more physical volumes
>> 
>> *   adding a physical volume to an existing LVM volume
>> 
>> *   removing a physical volume from an LVM volume
>> 
>> *   dismantling an LVM volume altogether.
>> 
>> Is that right?
> 
> LVM can be created from a single physcial volume.

I've corrected the specification accordingly.

> So the tasks seem correct.
> 
> * creating an LVM Physical Group from _one_ or more physical
> volume(s)
> 
> * adding/removing physical volumes to an LVM Group
> 
> * removing an LVM Physical Group all together

I have now completed the above specification for those tasks, as well
as for renaming a volume group. Please let me know what mistakes I've
made.

> (this can be done by presenting LVM as a block device and use 
> existing partitioning functionality) "partitioning" the LVM Group:
>  * adding/removing/resizing logical volumes

"Partitioning" a volume group can, almost certainly, be handled with
the existing UI for partitioning a physical disk -- possibly with
minor dynamic wording changes. However, I don't yet understand the
details of how these two types of partitioning differ.

What things can you do, with volumes in a volume group, that you can't
do with partitions in a physical disk? And vice versa?

Thanks
- -- 
mpt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk/bTKoACgkQ6PUxNfU6ecorsACdG0BO1XxmUoP8ZA4ABvFOiGPR
zPwAnRZC/am4ACwax0BZVz9RDZuRjys2
=kr1L
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----