Dne 27.12.2015 v 14:09 M.H. Tsai napsal(a):
Sorry, I sent a wrong mail before. Please ignore it.
2015-12-26 2:37 GMT+08:00 Zdenek Kabelac <zkabelac@redhat.com>:
Dne 25.12.2015 v 03:27 M.H. Tsai napsal(a):
It's not so simple - since the user may activate thin-pool without
activation of any thin-volume, and keep thin-pool active while thin-volumes
are activated and deactivated - so it's different case if user activates
thin-pool explicitly or thin-pool is activated as thin volume dependency.
Also thin-pool LV has its own cluster lock which is quite complicated to
explain, but for now - thin-pool size is unimportant, but it's existence is
mandatory :)
I have three questions:
1. If we need to preserve the -tpool layer, why the commit 00a45ca4
activates a new thinpool (transaction_id == 0) without overlay?
2. Is it necessary to suspend any thin volume while extending a
thinpool? If not, the commit fa648234 might need some fix.
3. Similary to question(2), is it necessary to suspend thin-pool while
expanding a thin-volume ? If no, we should adopt the approach of
a900d150e for thin-volume expansion. The following is my solution:
Hi
Thanks a lot for very detailed analysis which has been correct.
Hopefully I've put in all the patches here in the proper way upstream.
Please check upstream commits starting in this thread here:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/lvm-devel/2016-February/msg00004.html
Regards
Zdenek
_______________________________________________
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/
