From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul B. Henson Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 13:04:08 -0800 Subject: cache support In-Reply-To: References: <096101cf2214$d241ed60$76c5c820$@acm.org> <52F205CA.1090807@redhat.com> <0a3901cf22af$ae01d2d0$0a057870$@acm.org> <52F2AD44.8030006@redhat.com> <0a7b01cf22db$da3f56c0$8ebe0440$@acm.org> Message-ID: <0fff01cf276c$d059c8d0$710d5a70$@acm.org> List-Id: To: lvm-devel@redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: Brassow Jonathan > Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 9:24 AM > > What do you think about caching a thin pool? Then you would get the > benefit of caching for all of your LVs and you would get all the benefits of > thin and thin snapshots. Hmm, I'm not that familiar with thin allocation in lvm. Basically, I would allocate the entire PV as a thin LV, attach my entire cache to that, and then create all of my production LV's with thin allocation out of the single thin LV? Interesting thought. I have sufficient storage for at least the midterm, my perhaps flawed understanding is that going with thin LV's introduces an extra layer of complexity and inefficiency versus regular allocation?