Dne 13.9.2017 v 19:41 Xen napsal(a):
Zdenek Kabelac schreef op 12-09-2017 23:57:
Users interested in thin-provisioning are really mostly interested in
performance - especially on multicore machines with lots of fast
storage with high IOPS throughput (some of them even expect it should
be at least as good as linear....)
Why don't you hold a survey?
And not phrase it in terms of "Would you like to sacrifice performance for
more safety?"
But please.
Ask people:
Repeated again - whoever targets for 100% full thin-pool usage has
misunderstood purpose of thin-provisioning.....
Again, no one "targets" for 100% full. It is just an eventuality we need to
take care of.
You design for failure.
Thin-pool IS designed for failure - who said it isn't ?
It has very matured protection against data corruption.
It's just not getting overcomplicated in-kernel - solution is left for the
user-space - that's very clear design of 'dm' for decades...
If I was a customer and I was paying your bills, you would never respond like
this.
We are very nice to customers which pays our bills....
We like to design in advance so we do not have to keep a constant eye out.
Please if you can show the case where the current upstream thinLV fails and
you lose your data - we can finally start to fix something.
I'm still unsure what problem you want to get resolved from pretty small group
of people around dm/lvm2 - do you want from us to rework kernel page-cache ?
I'm simply still confused what kind action you expect...
Be specific with real world example.
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/
