archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk <>
To: linux-lvm <>
Cc: Håkon <>
Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] Looking ahead - tiering with LVM?
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2020 17:01:30 +0200 (CEST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

>> I just wonder how it could be possible some day, some year, to make
>> lvm use tiering. I guess this has been debated numerous times before
>> and I found this lvmts project, but it hasn't been updated for eight
>> years or so.
> Hi, having developed and supported file-level form of tiered storage in
> response to a specific customer request, I have the feeling that tiered
> storage (both file and block based) is not so useful as it seems. Let me
> explain why I feel so...

First, filelevel is usually useless. Say you have 50 VMs with Windows server something. A lot of them are bound to have a ton of equal storage in the same areas, but the file size and content will vary over time. With blocklevel tiering, that could work better.

> The key difference between caching and tiering is that the former does
> not increase total available space, while the latter provides as much
> space as available in each storage tier. For example, 1 TB SSD + 10 TB
> HDD can be combined for a 11 TB tiered volume.

This is all known.

> Tiering is useful when the faster volume provides a significant portion
> of the total aggregated sum - which is often not the case. In the
> example above, the SSD only provides a 10% space increase over plain
> caching. You can argue that one can simple enlarge the performane tier,
> for example using a 4 TB SSD + 10 TB HDD, but you are now in the
> ballpark of affording a full-SSD volume - ditching *both* tiering and
> caching.

If you look at IOPS instead of just sequencial speed, you'll see the difference. A set of 10 drives in a RAID-6 will perhaps, maybe, give you 1kIOPS, while a single SSD might give you 50kIOPS or even more. This makes a huge impact.

> That said, LVM already provides the basic building block to provide
> tiering as you can pvmove between block devices. The difficult thing is
> how to determine which block to move, and managing them in an automated
> way.

…which was the reason I asked this question, and which should be quite clear in the original post.

Vennlig hilsen

Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
(+47) 98013356
GPG Public key:
Hið góða skaltu í stein höggva, hið illa í snjó rita.

  reply	other threads:[~2020-09-09 15:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-09-02 18:38 Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2020-09-05 11:47 ` Gionatan Danti
2020-09-09 15:01   ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk [this message]
2020-09-09 18:16     ` Gionatan Danti
2020-09-09 18:47       ` John Stoffel
2020-09-09 19:10         ` Zdenek Kabelac
2020-09-09 19:21           ` John Stoffel
2020-09-09 19:44         ` Gionatan Danti
2020-09-09 19:53           ` John Stoffel
2020-09-09 20:20             ` Gionatan Danti
2020-09-09 19:41       ` Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
2020-09-09 19:49         ` Gionatan Danti

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: [linux-lvm] Looking ahead - tiering with LVM?' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).