Hi all,
Il 28-02-2018 10:26 Zdenek Kabelac ha scritto:
Overprovisioning on DEVICE level simply IS NOT equivalent to full
filesystem like you would like to see all the time here and you've
been already many times explained that filesystems are simply not
there ready - fixes are on going but it will take its time and it's
really pointless to exercise this on 2-3 year old kernels...
this was really beaten to death in the past months/threads. I generally
agree with Zedenk.
To recap (Zdeneck, correct me if I am wrong): the main problem is that,
on a full pool, async writes will more-or-less silenty fail (with errors
shown on dmesg, but nothing more). Another possible cause of problem is
that, even on a full pool, *some* writes will complete correctly (the
one on already allocated chunks).
In the past was argued that putting the entire pool in read-only mode
(where *all* writes fail, but read are permitted to complete) would be a
better fail-safe mechanism; however, it was stated that no current
dmtarget permit that.
Two (good) solution where given, both relying on scripting (see
"thin_command" option on lvm.conf):
- fsfreeze on a nearly full pool (ie: >=98%);
- replace the dmthinp target with the error target (using dmsetup).
I really think that with the good scripting infrastructure currently
built in lvm this is a more-or-less solved problem.
Do NOT take thin snapshot of your root filesystem so you will avoid
thin-pool overprovisioning problem.
But is someone *really* pushing thinp for root filesystem? I always used
it for data partition only... Sure, rollback capability on root is nice,
but it is on data which they are *really* important.
Thin-pool was never targeted for 'regular' usage of full thin-pool.
Full thin-pool is serious ERROR condition with bad/ill effects on
systems.
Thin-pool was designed to 'delay/postpone' real space usage - aka you
can use more 'virtual' space with the promise you deliver real storage
later.
In stress testing, I never saw a system crash on a full thin pool, but I
was not using it on root filesystem. There are any ill effect on system
stability which I need to know?
When my root snapshot fills up and gets dropped, I lose my undo
history, but at least my root filesystem won't lock up.
We discussed that in the past also, but as snapshot volumes really are
*regular*, writable volumes (which a 'k' flag to skip activation by
default), the LVM team take the "safe" stance to not automatically drop
any volume.
The solution is to use scripting/thin_command with lvm tags. For
example:
- tag all snapshot with a "snap" tag;
- when usage is dangerously high, drop all volumes with "snap" tag.
However, I don't have the space for a full copy of every filesystem,
so if I snapshot, I will automatically overprovision.
Back to rule #1 - thin-p is about 'delaying' deliverance of real space.
If you already have plan to never deliver promised space - you need to
live with consequences....
I am not sure to 100% agree on that. Thinp is not only about "delaying"
space provisioning; it clearly is also (mostly?) about fast, modern,
usable snapshots. Docker, snapper, stratis, etc. all use thinp mainly
for its fast, efficent snapshot capability. Denying that is not so
useful and led to "overwarning" (ie: when snapshotting a volume on a
virtually-fillable thin pool).
!SNAPSHOTS ARE NOT BACKUPS!
This is the key problem with your thinking here (unfortunately you are
not 'alone' with this thinking)
Snapshot are not backups, as they do not protect from hardware problems
(and denying that would be lame); however, they are an invaluable *part*
of a successfull backup strategy. Having multiple rollaback target, even
on the same machine, is a very usefull tool.
We do provide quite good 'scripting' support for this case - but again
if
the system can't crash - you can't use thin-pool for your root LV or
you can't use over-provisioning.
Again, I don't understand by we are speaking about system crashes. On
root *not* using thinp, I never saw a system crash due to full data
pool.
Oh, and I use thinp on RHEL/CentOS only (Debian/Ubuntu backports are way
too limited).
Regards.
--
Danti Gionatan
Supporto Tecnico
Assyoma S.r.l. - www.assyoma.it
email: g.danti@assyoma.it - info@assyoma.it
GPG public key ID: FF5F32A8
_______________________________________________
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/
