On 3.5.2016 15:15, Gionatan Danti wrote:
On 03/05/2016 13:42, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
What's wrong with 'lvs'?
This will give you the available space in thin-pool.
Oh, absolutely nothing wrong with lvs. I used "lsblk" only as an example of
the block device/layer exposing some (lack of) features to upper layer.
One note about the continued "suggestion" to use BTRFS. While for relatively
It's not 'continued' suggestion.
It's just the example of solution where 'filesystem & block layer' are tied
together. Every solution has some advantages and disadvantages.
simple use case it can be ok, for more demanding (rewrite-heavy) scenarios
(eg: hypervisor, database, ecc) it performs *really* bad, even when "nocow" is
enabled.
So far I'm convinced layered design gives user more freedom - for the price
of bigger space usage.
Anyway, ThinLVM + XFS is an extremely good combo in my opinion.
Yes, thought ext4 is quite good as well...
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/
