Re: higher agcount on LVM2 thinp volumes

[Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

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
>