On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 10:32:52PM +0100, Zdenek Kabelac wrote: > Dne 29. 01. 22 v 21:34 Demi Marie Obenour napsal(a): > > How much slower are operations on an LVM2 thin pool compared to manually > > managing a dm-thin target via ioctls? I am mostly concerned about > > volume snapshot, creation, and destruction. Data integrity is very > > important, so taking shortcuts that risk data loss is out of the > > question. However, the application may have some additional information > > that LVM2 does not have. For instance, it may know that the volume that > > it is snapshotting is not in use, or that a certain volume it is > > creating will never be used after power-off. > > > > Hi > > Short answer: it depends ;) > > Longer story: > If you want to create few thins per hour - than it doesn't really matter. > If you want to create few thins in a second - than the cost of lvm2 > management is very high - as lvm2 does far more work then just sending a > simple ioctl (as it's called logical volume management for a reason) Qubes OS definitely falls into the second category. Starting a qube (virtual machine) generally involves creating three thins (one fresh and two snapshots). Furthermore, Qubes OS frequently starts qubes in response to user actions, so thin volume creation speed directly impacts system responsiveness. > So brave developers may always write their own management tools for their > constrained environment requirements that will by significantly faster in > terms of how many thins you could create per minute (btw you will need to > also consider dropping usage of udev on such system) What kind of constraints are you referring to? Is it possible and safe to have udev running, but told to ignore the thins in question? > It's worth to mention - the more bullet-proof you will want to make your > project - the more closer to the extra processing made by lvm2 you will get. Why is this? How does lvm2 compare to stratis, for example? > However before you will step into these waters - you should probably > evaluate whether thin-pool actually meet your needs if you have that high > expectation for number of supported volumes - so you will not end up with > hyper fast snapshot creation while the actual usage then is not meeting your > needs... What needs are you thinking of specifically? Qubes OS needs block devices, so filesystem-backed storage would require the use of loop devices unless I use ZFS zvols. Do you have any specific recommendations? -- Sincerely, Demi Marie Obenour (she/her/hers) Invisible Things Lab
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ linux-lvm mailing list linux-lvm@xxxxxxxxxx https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/
