From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast06.extmail.prod.ext.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.55.22]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 442C920316E8 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2020 10:36:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-1.mimecast.com [205.139.110.61]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E225185B0A8 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2020 10:36:36 +0000 (UTC) MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2020 11:36:30 +0100 From: Gionatan Danti In-Reply-To: <91c96949-ec5c-04f2-b198-368f1e04e957@redhat.com> References: <91c96949-ec5c-04f2-b198-368f1e04e957@redhat.com> Message-ID: <88bfd65fc15f59c8781ab3f626811f79@assyoma.it> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] Time needed for take a snapshot 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: Zdenek Kabelac Cc: LVM general discussion and development Il 20-01-2020 10:22 Zdenek Kabelac ha scritto: > So having thousands of LVs in a single VG will become probably your > bottleneck. Hi Zdenek, I was thinking more about having few LVs, but with different amount of data/mapping. For example, is a very fragmented volume (ie: one written randomically) significantly slower to snapshot than an almost empty volume? I fully expect some small difference; however, if an empty volume take 0.2s and a fragmented one 20s, this would surely be significant. Note that I never had such a slow snapshot, rather, even on aged and big volumes, it always take <1s. However, other experiences are welcome. Thanks. -- Danti Gionatan Supporto Tecnico Assyoma S.r.l. - www.assyoma.it email: g.danti@assyoma.it - info@assyoma.it GPG public key ID: FF5F32A8