From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (ext-mx04.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.110.28]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C9E3F9FDDA for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 12:41:51 +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 5034B7F7AF for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 12:41:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from webmail.dds.nl (app1.dds.nl [81.21.136.61]) by smtp1.signet.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C8057244E for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 14:41:45 +0200 (CEST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 14:41:45 +0200 From: Xen In-Reply-To: References: <1438f48b-0a6d-4fb7-92dc-3688251e0a00@assyoma.it> Message-ID: <2f9c4346d4e9646ca058efdf535d435e@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 Gionatan Danti schreef op 13-04-2017 12:20: > Hi, > anyone with other thoughts on the matter? I wondered why a single thin LV does work for you in terms of not wasting space or being able to make more efficient use of "volumes" or client volumes or whatever. But a multitude of thin volumes won't. See, you only compared multiple non-thin with a single-thin. So my question is: did you consider multiple thin volumes?