From: malahal@us.ibm.com
To: dm-devel@redhat.com, lvm-devel@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 0 of 2] LVM: Split mirror capability
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:59:52 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20091015205952.GA14480@us.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1255468842.16495.21.camel@hydrogen.msp.redhat.com>
Jonathan Brassow [jbrassow@redhat.com] wrote:
> [root@bp-01 ~]# lvconvert -m1 --split vg/lv /dev/sdc1
> Logical volume lv converted.
> [root@bp-01 ~]# lvs
> LV VG Attr LSize Origin Snap% Move Log Copy% Convert
> LogVol00 VolGroup00 -wi-ao 139.09g
> LogVol01 VolGroup00 -wi-ao 9.81g
> lv vg mwi-a- 500.00m lv_mlog 100.00
> lv_mimage_1 vg -wi-a- 500.00m
>
> You can see from the above that I went as far as to specify the leg I
> wanted split off.
How about specifying the hidden volume name of legs rather than PVs?
I imagine a leg could be allocated on two different PVs.
> Aside from the new '--split' argument not being very good, we also end
> up with a new logical volume named, 'lv_mimage_1', which also isn't very
> good. Should I change the name via s/_mimage_1/-copy-%d/, or should I
> allow the name to be specified (or left alone)?
We should allow the name to be specified. If not specified, we should
do something like: lvname-split-%date%
> # New '--split' argument.
> # This is suppose to give the user the ability to signify a split
> # of the mirror, rather than a reduction/increase in mirror images.
> # However, something like '--keep_images' might better signify that
> # although we are reducing the number of mirror legs, we want to
> # have them presented rather than removed.
> prompt> lvconvert -m <n> --split vg/lv <removable device(s)>
>
> # New '--splitmirror <n>' argument
> # Replaces '-m <n> --split', and rather than specifying the number
> # of legs you want remaining in the mirror when finished, you specify
> # the number of legs you want split off.
> #
> # BTW, you can only split off one leg at a time right now, but I
> # don't see a reason why we couldn't split a 4-way mirror into
> # 2 2-way mirrors at some point in the future. (Being able to
> # specify the removable devices also allows us to choose every
> # other device if we chose to.)
> prompt> lvconvert --splitmirror 1 vg/lv <removable device(s)>
I like the current syntax if you go with 'lvconvert' command. It already
has -m option, and convert is all about the current LV rather than the
resulting split LV.
I like #2 better but only if you go with a different command like
lvsplit:
promt> lvsplit --splitnum <n> vg/lv <list of hidden lv names>
<n> is the number of mirror legs the user wants to split out and the
number of hidden volume names specified can be less than or equal to <n>
but can't be more.
Thanks, Malahal.
--
lvm-devel mailing list
lvm-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/lvm-devel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: malahal@us.ibm.com <malahal@us.ibm.com>
To: lvm-devel@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 0 of 2] LVM: Split mirror capability
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:59:52 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20091015205952.GA14480@us.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1255468842.16495.21.camel@hydrogen.msp.redhat.com>
Jonathan Brassow [jbrassow at redhat.com] wrote:
> [root at bp-01 ~]# lvconvert -m1 --split vg/lv /dev/sdc1
> Logical volume lv converted.
> [root at bp-01 ~]# lvs
> LV VG Attr LSize Origin Snap% Move Log Copy% Convert
> LogVol00 VolGroup00 -wi-ao 139.09g
> LogVol01 VolGroup00 -wi-ao 9.81g
> lv vg mwi-a- 500.00m lv_mlog 100.00
> lv_mimage_1 vg -wi-a- 500.00m
>
> You can see from the above that I went as far as to specify the leg I
> wanted split off.
How about specifying the hidden volume name of legs rather than PVs?
I imagine a leg could be allocated on two different PVs.
> Aside from the new '--split' argument not being very good, we also end
> up with a new logical volume named, 'lv_mimage_1', which also isn't very
> good. Should I change the name via s/_mimage_1/-copy-%d/, or should I
> allow the name to be specified (or left alone)?
We should allow the name to be specified. If not specified, we should
do something like: lvname-split-%date%
> # New '--split' argument.
> # This is suppose to give the user the ability to signify a split
> # of the mirror, rather than a reduction/increase in mirror images.
> # However, something like '--keep_images' might better signify that
> # although we are reducing the number of mirror legs, we want to
> # have them presented rather than removed.
> prompt> lvconvert -m <n> --split vg/lv <removable device(s)>
>
> # New '--splitmirror <n>' argument
> # Replaces '-m <n> --split', and rather than specifying the number
> # of legs you want remaining in the mirror when finished, you specify
> # the number of legs you want split off.
> #
> # BTW, you can only split off one leg at a time right now, but I
> # don't see a reason why we couldn't split a 4-way mirror into
> # 2 2-way mirrors at some point in the future. (Being able to
> # specify the removable devices also allows us to choose every
> # other device if we chose to.)
> prompt> lvconvert --splitmirror 1 vg/lv <removable device(s)>
I like the current syntax if you go with 'lvconvert' command. It already
has -m option, and convert is all about the current LV rather than the
resulting split LV.
I like #2 better but only if you go with a different command like
lvsplit:
promt> lvsplit --splitnum <n> vg/lv <list of hidden lv names>
<n> is the number of mirror legs the user wants to split out and the
number of hidden volume names specified can be less than or equal to <n>
but can't be more.
Thanks, Malahal.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-10-15 20:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-10-13 21:20 [PATCH 0 of 2] LVM: Split mirror capability Jonathan Brassow
2009-10-13 21:20 ` Jonathan Brassow
2009-10-15 20:59 ` malahal [this message]
2009-10-15 20:59 ` [dm-devel] " malahal
2009-10-26 20:58 ` Alasdair G Kergon
2009-10-26 21:02 ` Alasdair G Kergon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20091015205952.GA14480@us.ibm.com \
--to=malahal@us.ibm.com \
--cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
--cc=lvm-devel@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.