From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A8571C433F5 for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2022 20:28:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-573-UD-Q1cW7M_q7B3QlwQHN_g-1; Sun, 30 Jan 2022 15:28:35 -0500 X-MC-Unique: UD-Q1cW7M_q7B3QlwQHN_g-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 561601083F60; Sun, 30 Jan 2022 20:28:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from colo-mx.corp.redhat.com (colo-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.21]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E45D89329; Sun, 30 Jan 2022 20:28:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists01.pubmisc.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com (lists01.pubmisc.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.19.33]) by colo-mx.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D2794CA93; Sun, 30 Jan 2022 20:28:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.5]) by lists01.pubmisc.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id 20UKS4wL030955 for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2022 15:28:04 -0500 Received: by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) id E3EEE53C8; Sun, 30 Jan 2022 20:28:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast01.extmail.prod.ext.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.55.17]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF80353D1 for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2022 20:28:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com [205.139.110.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A50685A5A8 for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2022 20:28:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plutone.assyoma.it (host195-56-237-212.serverdedicati.aruba.it [212.237.56.195]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-454-HVL-dmVaPjCbd4IaZY3QKA-1; Sun, 30 Jan 2022 15:27:58 -0500 X-MC-Unique: HVL-dmVaPjCbd4IaZY3QKA-1 Received: from webmail.assyoma.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by plutone.assyoma.it (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 4197EDD9A86A; Sun, 30 Jan 2022 21:27:56 +0100 (CET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2022 21:27:56 +0100 From: Gionatan Danti To: LVM general discussion and development In-Reply-To: <849ab633-ec3d-a0a5-38bf-72b87bbba2c5@gmail.com> References: <6da8a7fc-4ca4-9c1d-c547-dcba827c5c99@gmail.com> <4bb347f0-b63b-d6f6-d501-1318053d0e56@gmail.com> <849ab633-ec3d-a0a5-38bf-72b87bbba2c5@gmail.com> User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.4.13 Message-ID: X-Sender: g.danti@assyoma.it X-Mimecast-Impersonation-Protect: Policy=CLT - Impersonation Protection Definition; Similar Internal Domain=false; Similar Monitored External Domain=false; Custom External Domain=false; Mimecast External Domain=false; Newly Observed Domain=false; Internal User Name=false; Custom Display Name List=false; Reply-to Address Mismatch=false; Targeted Threat Dictionary=false; Mimecast Threat Dictionary=false; Custom Threat Dictionary=false X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.11.54.5 X-loop: linux-lvm@redhat.com Cc: Demi Marie Obenour Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] LVM performance vs direct dm-thin X-BeenThere: linux-lvm@redhat.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: junk Reply-To: LVM general discussion and development List-Id: LVM general discussion and development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-lvm-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: linux-lvm-bounces@redhat.com X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.23 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=linux-lvm-bounces@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Il 2022-01-30 18:43 Zdenek Kabelac ha scritto: > Chain filesystem->block_layer->filesystem->block_layer is something > you most likely do not want to use for any well performing solution... > But it's ok for testing... I second that. Demi Marie - just a question: are you sure do you really needs a block device? I don't know QubeOS, but both KVM and Xen can use files as virtual disks. This would enable you to ignore loopback mounts. 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 _______________________________________________ linux-lvm mailing list linux-lvm@redhat.com https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/