[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0811100952150.19937@hs20-bc2-1.build.redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 09:55:55 -0500 (EST)
From: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@...ibm.com>,
Alasdair G Kergon <agk@...hat.com>,
dm-devel <dm-devel@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
axboe@...nel.dk
Subject: Re: Queue upcall locking (was: [dm-devel] [RFC][PATCH] fix
dm_any_congested() to properly sync up with suspend code path)
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > If you have a physical disk that has many LVM volumes on it, you end up in
> > a situation when disk congestion state change is reported to all the
> > volumes. So it will create O(n) problem at the other side.
>
> *sigh* I can almost understand why people want to use lvm to combine
> multiple disks, but why make the partition thing even worse...
To protect the services from each other --- so that mail storm won't blow
user's directories, users blowing their space can't corrupt the system
updates, logs are kept safely even if other partition overflows etc.
I just know some admins who prefer to have separate filesystems instead of
quotas for this purpose.
Mikulas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists