| To: | linux-lvm@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [linux-lvm] How well tested is the snapshot feature? |
| From: | Joe Thornber <joe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sat, 8 Jun 2002 10:10:22 +0100 |
| Cc: | "'linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx'" <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <20020608085931.GA915@fib011235813.fsnet.co.uk> |
| References: | <2D0AFEFEE711D611923E009027D39F2B02F18C@nasexs1.meridian-data.com> <20020608085931.GA915@fib011235813.fsnet.co.uk> |
| Sender: | owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.3.28i |
On Sat, Jun 08, 2002 at 09:59:31AM +0100, Joe Thornber wrote: > exceptions LVM1 and EVMS will perform the following steps: > > 1) Issue read of original chunk > 2) wait > 3) issue write > 4) wait I forgot about the metadata update: 6) issue metadata write 7) wait device-mapper batches the metadata updates, under load this amortises the cost away (well, to a point where I can't measure it). - Joe |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [linux-lvm] How well tested is the snapshot feature?, Joe Thornber |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | TAKE - optimization in unlock code, Steve Lord |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [linux-lvm] How well tested is the snapshot feature?, Joe Thornber |
| Next by Thread: | TAKE - fix _ACL_XFS_IACCESS, Dean Roehrich |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |