From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 References: <1438f48b-0a6d-4fb7-92dc-3688251e0a00@assyoma.it> <2f9c4346d4e9646ca058efdf535d435e@xenhideout.nl> <5df13342-8c31-4a0b-785e-1d12f0d2d9e8@redhat.com> <6dd12ab9-0390-5c07-f4b7-de0d8fbbeacf@redhat.com> <3831e817d7d788e93a69f20e5dda1159@xenhideout.nl> From: Zdenek Kabelac Message-ID: <0ab1c4e1-b15e-b22e-9455-5569eeaa0563@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 11:26:43 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3831e817d7d788e93a69f20e5dda1159@xenhideout.nl> Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: Xen Cc: LVM general discussion and development Dne 23.4.2017 v 07:29 Xen napsal(a): > Zdenek Kabelac schreef op 22-04-2017 23:17: > >>> That is awesome, that means a errors=remount-ro mount will cause a remount >>> right? >> >> Well 'remount-ro' will fail but you will not be able to read anything >> from volume as well. > > Well that is still preferable to anything else. > > It is preferable to a system crash, I mean. > > So if there is no other last rather, I think this is really the only last > resort that exists? > > Or maybe one of the other things Gionatan suggested. > >> Currently lvm2 can't support that much variety and complexity... > > I think it's simpler but okay, sure... > > I think pretty much anyone would prefer a volume-read-errors system rather > than a kernel-hang system. I'm just currious - what the you think will happen when you have root_LV as thin LV and thin pool runs out of space - so 'root_LV' is replaced with 'error' target. How do you think this will be ANY different from hanging your system ? > It is just not of the same magnitude of disaster :p. IMHO reboot is still quite fair solution in such case. Regards Zdenek