All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
To: Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc: Alexey Zaytsev <alexey.zaytsev@gmail.com>,
	linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
Subject: Re: Mentor for a GSoC application wanted (Online ext2/3 filesystem checker)
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 20:24:55 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <480A9B67.2050200@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080419220432.GB30449@mit.edu>

Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 02:07:34PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:


>> If you really just want to verify a snapshot of the fs at a point in
>> time, surely there are simpler ways.  If the device is on lvm, there's
>> already a script floating around to do it in automated fasion.  (I'd
>> pondered the idea of introducing META_WRITE (to go with META_READ) and
>> maybe lvm could do a "metadata-only" snapshot to be lighter weight?)
> 
> That would be great, although I think the major issue is not
> necessarily the performance problems of using an LVM snapshot on a
> very busy filesystem 

well, backing space for the snapshot could be an issue too.  Basically,
if you're only using it for this purpose, why COW all the post-snapshot
data if you just don't care...

> (althouh I could imagine for some users this
> might be an issue), but rather for filesystem devices that aren't
> using LVM at all.  (I've heard some complaints that LVM imposes a
> performance penalty even if you aren't using a snapshot; has anyone
> done any benchmarks of a filesystem with and without LVM to see
> whether or not there really is a significant performance penalty;
> whether or not there really is one, the perception is definitely out
> there that it does.)

I've heard from someone who did some testing about a minor penalty, but
I can't point to any published test so I guess that's just more hearsay.
 It's intuitive that putting lvm on top of a block device might not be
absolutely, 100% free, though....  Adds to stack, too.

> If we could do a lightweight snapshot that didn't require an LVM, that
> would be really great.  But that's probably not an ext4 project, and
> I'm not sure the it would be considered politically correct in the
> LKML community.

Yep; my original reply originally wished something about non-lvm
snapshots but... while yes, it'd be nice for this purpose, ponies for
everyone would be nice too... :)  But I didn't mention it because... how
do you do a generic non-lvm snapshot of, say, /dev/sda3 without some
sort of volume manager...?

If there's some clever idea that could be implemented cleanly, I'd be
all ears.  :)

-Eric

  reply	other threads:[~2008-04-20  1:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-04-18 14:20 Mentor for a GSoC application wanted (Online ext2/3 filesystem checker) Alexey Zaytsev
2008-04-19  1:29 ` Theodore Tso
2008-04-19  9:44   ` Alexey Zaytsev
2008-04-19 18:56     ` Theodore Tso
2008-04-19 19:07       ` Eric Sandeen
2008-04-19 22:04         ` Theodore Tso
2008-04-20  1:24           ` Eric Sandeen [this message]
2008-04-20 23:30           ` Andi Kleen
2008-04-20 23:42             ` Jamie Lokier
2008-04-21  8:01               ` Andi Kleen
2008-04-21  8:01               ` Andi Kleen
2008-04-21 11:51                 ` Jamie Lokier
2008-04-21 17:29                 ` Ricardo M. Correia
2008-04-21 17:40                   ` Andi Kleen
2008-04-21 18:27                     ` Ricardo M. Correia
2008-04-22 14:48                     ` Jamie Lokier
2008-04-21 18:15                 ` Ric Wheeler
2008-04-21 18:25                   ` Eric Sandeen
2008-04-21 18:44                     ` Ric Wheeler
2008-04-21 18:58                       ` Matthew Wilcox
2008-04-21 19:11                         ` Ric Wheeler
2008-04-21  0:27         ` Alexey Zaytsev
2008-04-21  9:45           ` Andi Kleen
2008-04-22 16:54         ` Peter Teoh
2008-04-22 17:02           ` Eric Sandeen
2008-04-22 23:37             ` Andreas Dilger
2008-04-23  0:52               ` Eric Sandeen
     [not found]           ` <480E4950.1090300@oracle.com>
     [not found]             ` <804dabb00804221633g1f61029dh7b27737134fc0b7a@mail.gmail.com>
     [not found]               ` <480E7954.9090408@oracle.com>
2008-04-23  1:02                 ` Peter Teoh
2008-04-20 23:37       ` Andi Kleen
2008-04-21  2:33         ` Theodore Tso
2008-04-21 14:43           ` Andi Kleen
2008-04-21  0:23       ` Alexey Zaytsev
2008-04-21 12:53         ` Theodore Tso

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=480A9B67.2050200@redhat.com \
    --to=sandeen@redhat.com \
    --cc=alexey.zaytsev@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=riel@surriel.com \
    --cc=tytso@mit.edu \
    /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.