* Discard support for dm-snap @ 2010-09-02 8:05 Hannes Reinecke 2010-09-02 14:14 ` Mike Snitzer 2010-09-02 18:21 ` Douglas McClendon 0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread From: Hannes Reinecke @ 2010-09-02 8:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: device-mapper development Hi all, now that we've got discard support in the block layer, are there plans to update dm-snap to actually implement discard? Looks like a valid addendum here; we could be freeing up unused blocks thus freeing up space. Especially helpful when using dm-snap to create a sparse device; cf http://www.mjmwired.net/kernel/Documentation/device-mapper/zero.txt Thoughts? Cheers, Hannes -- Dr. Hannes Reinecke zSeries & Storage hare@suse.de +49 911 74053 688 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Discard support for dm-snap 2010-09-02 8:05 Discard support for dm-snap Hannes Reinecke @ 2010-09-02 14:14 ` Mike Snitzer 2010-09-02 18:21 ` Douglas McClendon 1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread From: Mike Snitzer @ 2010-09-02 14:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Hannes Reinecke; +Cc: device-mapper development, mpatocka, ejt On Thu, Sep 02 2010 at 4:05am -0400, Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de> wrote: > Hi all, > > now that we've got discard support in the block layer, are there plans > to update dm-snap to actually implement discard? > Looks like a valid addendum here; we could be freeing up unused blocks > thus freeing up space. > Especially helpful when using dm-snap to create a sparse device; > cf > http://www.mjmwired.net/kernel/Documentation/device-mapper/zero.txt > > Thoughts? From https://www.redhat.com/archives/dm-devel/2010-July/msg00149.html "The snapshot and crypt targets will not have discard support. Snapshots must preserve any data that is deleted so the value of discard is negligible. Discard support for the origin target may be considered in the future (could be especially useful if origin and COW are different devices and origin is a thinly provisioned LUN)." The snapshot target must always preserve changes (in the form of exceptions in the COW store). Even though you'd be removing files through the snapshot device as far as the snapshot is concerned it must track that change (relative to the origin). Simply put: the current snapshot store format doesn't easily allow for what you're asking for. The new shared snapshot target that is in development may provide an opportunity for adding more intelligence to account for this use-case. Mikulas and/or Joe may have more insight here. Mike ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Discard support for dm-snap 2010-09-02 8:05 Discard support for dm-snap Hannes Reinecke 2010-09-02 14:14 ` Mike Snitzer @ 2010-09-02 18:21 ` Douglas McClendon 2010-09-03 5:45 ` Hannes Reinecke 1 sibling, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Douglas McClendon @ 2010-09-02 18:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: dm-devel On 09/02/2010 03:05 AM, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > Hi all, > > now that we've got discard support in the block layer, are there plans > to update dm-snap to actually implement discard? > Looks like a valid addendum here; we could be freeing up unused blocks > thus freeing up space. > Especially helpful when using dm-snap to create a sparse device; > cf > http://www.mjmwired.net/kernel/Documentation/device-mapper/zero.txt > > Thoughts? Here was my similar suggestion and the discussion with Mike that followed- http://www.spinics.net/lists/dm-devel/msg11632.html I still feel like there is a disconnect between my thinking and Mike's, as I think I have the same fundamental interest as you do Hannes. I.e. a perfect example is a simple dm-snapshot used for a livecd root filesystem. In that case, after boot, the user creates a new file in the rootfs, and that causes exception chunks (terminology?) to be created in the cow device of the dm-snapshot. Then, at a later point, the user deletes that file. It then seems 100% reasonable for the discard request to result in freeing the used resources in the cow device. I see no semantic reason why that data need be kept around any more than it need be kept around on an SSD after a file is deleted. Now, where I think the disconnect comes in, is that perhaps the majority use of snapshots in todays word is perhaps a snapshot-origin (terminology?) where the exception store (not quite a 'cow device'?) is not used to store the modified blocks, but instead, used to store the original blocks. In _that_ case, things are different, perhaps more as Mike described them. Now, I do understand that Mike is the person actually neck deep in all this code, so I could be completely misunderstanding the picture. But I'm glad someone else also sees what I see here as far as potential benefit and use case. -dmc > > Cheers, > > Hannes ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Discard support for dm-snap 2010-09-02 18:21 ` Douglas McClendon @ 2010-09-03 5:45 ` Hannes Reinecke 0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread From: Hannes Reinecke @ 2010-09-03 5:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: device-mapper development [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8, Size: 2157 bytes --] On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 01:21:05PM -0500, Douglas McClendon wrote: > On 09/02/2010 03:05 AM, Hannes Reinecke wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> now that we've got discard support in the block layer, are there plans >> to update dm-snap to actually implement discard? >> Looks like a valid addendum here; we could be freeing up unused blocks >> thus freeing up space. >> Especially helpful when using dm-snap to create a sparse device; >> cf >> http://www.mjmwired.net/kernel/Documentation/device-mapper/zero.txt >> >> Thoughts? > > Here was my similar suggestion and the discussion with Mike that followed- > > http://www.spinics.net/lists/dm-devel/msg11632.html > > I still feel like there is a disconnect between my thinking and Mike's, as > I think I have the same fundamental interest as you do Hannes. > Yes and no. Snapshotting is similar but not identical to a sparse device. > I.e. a perfect example is a simple dm-snapshot used for a livecd root > filesystem. In that case, after boot, the user creates a new file in the > rootfs, and that causes exception chunks (terminology?) to be created in > the cow device of the dm-snapshot. Then, at a later point, the user > deletes that file. It then seems 100% reasonable for the discard request > to result in freeing the used resources in the cow device. I see no > semantic reason why that data need be kept around any more than it need be > kept around on an SSD after a file is deleted. > It has to be for snapshotting. The main idea of snapshotting is the possibility to do a rollback, ie that you can mount an earlier snapshot instead of the current one and re-start from there. This ability is lost if a later snapshot deletes blocks permanently; these blocks would have to be removed from _all_ snapshots to really free up space. But this would make rollback impossible. Tempting as it may sound, I fear it's not going to work in general. Cheers, Hannes -- Dr. Hannes Reinecke zSeries & Storage hare@suse.de +49 911 74053 688 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 0 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-09-03 5:45 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2010-09-02 8:05 Discard support for dm-snap Hannes Reinecke 2010-09-02 14:14 ` Mike Snitzer 2010-09-02 18:21 ` Douglas McClendon 2010-09-03 5:45 ` Hannes Reinecke
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.