[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190321174811.GF9434@mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 13:48:11 -0400
From: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
To: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
Cc: Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
darrick.wong@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] e2scrub_all: refactor device probe loop
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 11:27:42AM +0100, Lukas Czerner wrote:
>
> Snapshot of a thinspanshot is allowed though, so we might want to
> include those. Not sure if it's wise to do it by default, but regardless
> it's probably something for a separate change.
Yeah, it's definitely a separate change. One potential design
question is that for a thin volume, you can do both a thin or a think
snapshot, and in some cases one might succeed while the other will
fail. So do we make this choice be a parameter that we set in the
config file, or do we try to see if there is sufficient spare
freespace for a thick snapshot (and then do that), or a thin snapshot
(and then do that) --- and which should use prefer?
The other thing I'll note is that in order for us to tell whether
something is a thin or thick LV, we're going to to need to ask lvs to
return multiple parameters, so the optimization of using:
for NAME in $(lvs -o lv_path --noheadings -S...) ; do
...
done
will no longer work. (Or we end up calling lvs a second time, which
is less efficient.)
Just curious --- do we know how commonly thin LV's are being used by
customers of various distros? I assume enterprise distro users will
be the most conservative, but how common is the uptake of thin LV's by
Fedora and OpenSuSE users?
- Ted
Powered by blists - more mailing lists