LVM performance vs direct dm-thin
Demi Marie Obenour <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.lvm.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <YfWkwtOTFYxDyYrW@itl-email> |
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. -- Sincerely, Demi Marie Obenour (she/her/hers) Invisible Things Lab _______________________________________________ linux-lvm mailing list [email protected] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 833 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEdodNnxM2uiJZBxxxsoi1X/+cIsEFAmH1pMIACgkQsoi1X/+c IsHIrxAAu+SGyB5JbAw95wMzm7QHgbiJvEb3BNKRiue7mQftAj2oVZE2f5vkxQa8 tAU+liJ4zE/Vp37qxKTssTy4OCa26ASaLjuapS/WDQ2OZa1HFowkW6KtmjRcaBLQ KoPOCUVWFiEMJKNZSvqlPIPub340xfPY1fDar+N/nOMjdu9nfHQyBm4MaLgsN9zt b4mH40ax2MBYjO0lzQIL9ecgYE8neBXy9nT/BZFQhBWcizC+roRf/gJllZXIhnAO lAcj+fhPpBtQ+Eh6oLSQaZ7vhZO1/bhOTWaYZ8h1KXAOBtUJ3DYPRSZbXPuxuowm VtYMk2KHUChmfs5gbIJjqL60ie5iDXhAmUhimBeRq91YAYEFQ1Y7Zmx9WCNCnAGM yoS389VHc9bqgJy+rJ/briv859I3Iyr9SoABg0nSq+NkH4oomTqwGiEeq9b1WpxI NxV4EJcRTTtQ4mWbhKSr2AfM6L2rjCI8yfUI7m1ZTR+5NK6RfoA1J9f99L1gCADi v01pyzwY6TCEu/b6WCizY9or5dk3jRLBBbQbHZA8uSkgKI/c2LiSRC86Ano01Kh/ gqrdxmmrnDmduI3p3LMenCZPG1k9tXNeK0uO81OuFyFMjiipXq2/LoGkHdz/CuNI LzsGO1Sc0j7hPJnmhhuq6AvlaZvB6h+nFRGpf/c2WMMj6Sg0o9g= =u+UB -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----