From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (ext-mx01.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.110.25]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4233DA27A2 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 13:52:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp1.signet.nl (smtp1.signet.nl [83.96.147.43]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D0BE81F07 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 13:52:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from webmail.dds.nl (app1.dds.nl [81.21.136.61]) by smtp1.signet.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id C83DE762D8 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 15:52:17 +0200 (CEST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 15:52:17 +0200 From: Xen In-Reply-To: References: <1438f48b-0a6d-4fb7-92dc-3688251e0a00@assyoma.it> <58E7992A.4030000@tlinx.org> Message-ID: <7732cbebfc561db0d8749310f1ba010f@xenhideout.nl> Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] Snapshot behavior on classic LVM vs ThinLVM Reply-To: LVM general discussion and development List-Id: LVM general discussion and development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: linux-lvm@redhat.com Stuart Gathman schreef op 13-04-2017 14:59: > If you are going to keep snapshots around indefinitely, the thinpools > are probably the way to go. (What happens when you fill up those? > Hopefully it "freezes" the pool rather than losing everything.) My experience is that the system crashes. I have not tested this with a snapshot but a general thin pool overflow crashes the system. Within half a minute, I think. It is irrelevant whether the volumes had anything to do with the operation of the system; ie. some mounted volumes that you write to that are in no other use will crash the system.