Zdenek Kabelac schreef op 11-09-2017 12:35:
As thin-provisioning is about 'promising the space you can deliver
later when needed' - it's not about hidden magic to make the space
out-of-nowhere.
The idea of planning to operate thin-pool on 100% fullness boundary is
simply not going to work well - it's not been designed for that
use-case
I am going to rear my head again and say that a great many people would
probably want a thin-provisioning that does exactly that ;-).
I mean you have it designed for auto-extension but there are also many
people that do not want to auto-extend and just share available
resources more flexibly.
For those people safety around 100% fullness boundary becomes more
important.
I don't really think there is another solution for that.
I don't think BTRFS is really a good solution for that.
So what alternatives are there, Zdenek? LVM is really the only thing
that feels "good" to us.
Are there structural design inhibitions that would really prevent this
thing from ever arising?
_______________________________________________
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/
