xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: higher agcount on LVM2 thinp volumes

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: higher agcount on LVM2 thinp volumes
From: Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 11:55:50 -0600
Cc: stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20130830033800.GX12779@dastard>
References: <321D1F95-5603-4571-A445-A267DA5F670F@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <521FF8F4.9040009@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <DD759368-581C-4C94-BC5E-E6EC3A83FC61@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20130830025819.GB23571@dastard> <B40ABF48-E2CB-4C02-9DF9-B68BB84341C3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20130830033800.GX12779@dastard>
On Aug 29, 2013, at 9:38 PM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> So, what dm-thinp is trying to tell us is that the minimum
> *physical* IO size is 512 bytes (i.e. /sys/.../physical_block_size)
> but the efficient IO size is 256k. So dm-thinp is exposing the
> information incorrectly. What it shoul dbe doing is setting both the
> minimum_io_size and the optimal_io_size to the same value of 256k…

Should I file a bug? Against lvm2?



Chris Murphy
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>