Hey Alasdair, thanks a lot for the prompt reply. On Sat, 2008-07-12 at 17:51 +0100, Alasdair G Kergon wrote: > On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 10:57:31PM -0700, Daniel Stodden wrote: > > I'm running, lvm2-2.02.26. > > Don't bother investigating that version - stuff got changed. > Update to the latest release (or CVS) and try again. > > > Why is that data reread? > > Because the two parts of the code are designed to be independent. - The > so-called "activation" code sits behind an API in a so-called "locking" > module. There's a choice of locking modules, and some send the requests > around a cluster of machines - remote machines will only run the > activation code and manage the metadata independently. We just pass > UUIDs through the cluster communication layer, never metadata itself. Oooh - kay. I've only been looking at _file..() operations. In the clustered version that sounds much more obvious. > > Second: why isn't that memory freed after returning from > > activate_lv? > > It's released after processing the whole command. If there are cases > where too much is still being held while processing in the *current* > version of the code, then yes, you might be able to free parts of it > sooner. I've been running on CVS today. The situation appears to have improved, but only slightly. Still way to much memory going down the drain. BTW: Did CVS change the memlocking policy? I just noticed that I can run beyond physical RAM now. Is that a bug or a feature? I had a very long look at the path down activate/deactivate() in general and the dm storage allocator in particular. If I nail a separate per-LV pool over the cmd_context in _activate_lvs_in_vg() and empty it once per cycle, things slow down a little [1], but the general problem vanishes. Now, overriding cmd->mem isn't exactly beautiful. Any better suggestions? I need this fixed. And soon. :} Second is revisions: I suppose something like the above would work as a patch into elderly source RPMs as well. Such as the .26 I mentioned in my original post. Any tips on this? I'd consider upgrading, but I've see your advise against that on debian's launchpad, at least regarding .38 and .39. Which is hip? So far, thank you very much again. Best, Daniel [1] For a stack-alike allocator, I think dm_pool_free() generates a rather scary number of individual brk()s while rewinding. But that's certainly not a functional issue, and I may, again, be mistaken. _______________________________________________ linux-lvm mailing list linux-lvm@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/
