From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (ext-mx07.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.110.31]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FE165D97B for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2017 19:20:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mr003msb.fastweb.it (mr003msb.fastweb.it [85.18.95.87]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87537C00DBB0 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2017 19:20:37 +0000 (UTC) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 21:20:36 +0200 From: Gionatan Danti In-Reply-To: <67e57de26f65447bde9e55bcf9a99ccc@xenhideout.nl> References: <76b114ca-404b-d7e5-8f59-26336acaadcf@assyoma.it> <0c6c96790329aec2e75505eaf544bade@assyoma.it> <8fee43a1-dd57-f0a5-c9de-8bf74f16afb0@gmail.com> <7d0d218c420d7c687d1a17342da5ca00@xenhideout.nl> <6e9535b6-218c-3f66-2048-88e1fcd21329@redhat.com> <2cea88d3e483b3db671cc8dd446d66d0@xenhideout.nl> <9115414464834226be029dacb9b82236@xenhideout.nl> <50f67268-a44e-7cb7-f20a-7b7e15afde3a@redhat.com> <595ff1d4-3277-ca5e-a18e-d62eaaf0b1a0@redhat.com> <9aa2d67c38af3e4042bd3f37559b799d@xenhideout.nl> <2d1025d7784ab44cbc03cfe7f6778599@xenhideout.nl> <58f99204-d978-3f6a-9db8-b7122b30575e@redhat.com> <458d105938796d90f4e426bc458e8cc4@xenhideout.nl> <67e57de26f65447bde9e55bcf9a99ccc@xenhideout.nl> Message-ID: Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] Reserve space for specific thin logical volumes 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: LVM general discussion and development Cc: Xen Il 17-09-2017 09:10 Xen ha scritto: > Xen schreef op 17-09-2017 8:31: > > > But if it's not active I don't see why it should be critical or why > you should reserve space for it to be honest... Xen, I really think that the combination of hard-threshold obtained by setting thin_pool_autoextend_threshold and thin_command hook for user-defined script should be sufficient to prevent and/or react to full thin pools. I'm all for the "keep it simple" on the kernel side. After all, thinp maintain very high performance in spite of its CoW behavior *even when approaching pool fullness*, a thing which can not be automatically said for advanced in-kernel filesystems as BTRFS (which very low random-rewrite performance) and ZFS (I just recently opened a ZoL issue for ZVOLs with *much* lower than expected write performance, albeit the workaround/correction was trivial in this case). That said, I would like to see some pre-defined scripts to easily manage pool fullness. For example, a script to automatically delete all inactive snapshots with "deleteme" or "temporary" flag. Sure, writing such a script is trivial for any sysadmin - but I would really like the standardisation such predefined scripts imply. Regards. -- Danti Gionatan Supporto Tecnico Assyoma S.r.l. - www.assyoma.it email: g.danti@assyoma.it - info@assyoma.it GPG public key ID: FF5F32A8