From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx3.redhat.com (mx3.redhat.com [172.16.48.32]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m5GK376D006713 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:03:07 -0400 Received: from mx03.syneticon.net (mx03.syneticon.net [87.79.32.166]) by mx3.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5GK2qf9028036 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:02:52 -0400 Received: from localhost (filter1.syneticon.net [192.168.113.3]) by mx03.syneticon.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7781B946A for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:02:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mx03.syneticon.net ([192.168.113.4]) by localhost (mx03.syneticon.net [192.168.113.3]) (amavisd-new, port 10025) with ESMTP id VvLhucKTFjNF for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:02:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.10.145] (koln-4d0b73de.pool.mediaWays.net [77.11.115.222]) by mx03.syneticon.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:02:42 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4856C6E1.6080804@wpkg.org> Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:02:41 +0200 From: Tomasz Chmielewski MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] Server hangs when writing to LVM volume due to LVM Snapshots References: <20080616135319.GA29234@campbell-lange.net> <4856715A.6050107@wpkg.org> <20080616141907.GH3765@campbell-lange.net> <48567DF8.7080600@wpkg.org> <20080616151014.GJ3765@campbell-lange.net> <4856BC88.4060602@wpkg.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: LVM general discussion and development List-Id: LVM general discussion and development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: LVM general discussion and development Dan Kegel schrieb: > On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote: >> LVM-2 doesn't scale very well. >> >> If you have I/O intensive workloads, I'd discourage using (multiple) >> snapshots. >> >> A single write to the origin mean additional writes to each and every >> snapshot of that origin. > > Right. This is one of the things zumastor.org snapshots do better; > all snapshots for a volume share a common snapshot store, > so performance doesn't fall as you add more snapshots. > You might want to have a look at it... join the zumastor > mailing list or drop in on our irc if you have questions. Speaking of Zumastor - is it equivalent (or just a part of something bigger) of still discussed, future LVM-3? There was supposed to be a presentation titled "LVM3 Advanced Volume Manager for Linux" by Daniel Phillips on LinuxTag 2008 in May[1] - do you know if it's available anywhere (yet)? >> Tomasz Chmielewski >> http://wpkg.org > > wpkg.org looks very cool. I haven't used it much yet, > but I hope to use it as a kind of automated real world test of > wine sometime. Thanks. For application installation it should work just fine (as it is what it does), but for some more thorough GUI testing...? Anyway, we're getting off-topic here ;) [1] http://www.linuxtag.org/2008/de/conf/events/vp-mittwoch/vortragsdetails.html?talkid=51 -- Tomasz Chmielewski http://wpkg.org