On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 12:58:54AM +0000, Alasdair G Kergon wrote: > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 01:45:35AM +0100, Spelic wrote: > > breaking it up in smaller subsegments would probably have been wiser, > > The plan was always for more frequent checkpoints, but it involves more > complicated code and there's simply been no need to do this: given how rarely > pvmove is used, the current approach seems to be good enough and nobody's > written the extra code yet. Also, if you want more frequent checkpoints, you can do that by calling pvmove appropriately: just don't move the whole thing at once, but repeatedly call pvmove with an explicit extent range. Lars _______________________________________________ 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/
