xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: higher agcount on LVM2 thinp volumes

To: Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: higher agcount on LVM2 thinp volumes
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 20:22:11 -0500
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <F4A27AB5-EDCA-42A3-8D9D-D5F0B992630A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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> <F4A27AB5-EDCA-42A3-8D9D-D5F0B992630A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Aug 30, 2013, at 12:55 PM, Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> 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 256kâ
> 
> Should I file a bug? Against lvm2?
> 
> 
I think so.  They may already be aware of it but better to not lose it...

Eric

> 
> Chris Murphy
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
> 

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