From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9FA1C433EF for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2022 21:19:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-122-d4G0H4YsMXmelFWoqvrwoQ-1; Sun, 30 Jan 2022 16:19:21 -0500 X-MC-Unique: d4G0H4YsMXmelFWoqvrwoQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA1701083F61; Sun, 30 Jan 2022 21:19:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from colo-mx.corp.redhat.com (colo-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.20]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E4B36AB8D; Sun, 30 Jan 2022 21:19:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists01.pubmisc.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com (lists01.pubmisc.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.19.33]) by colo-mx.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 921921809CB8; Sun, 30 Jan 2022 21:19:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.3]) by lists01.pubmisc.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id 20ULIxpB002306 for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2022 16:18:59 -0500 Received: by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) id 9E8F1112131B; Sun, 30 Jan 2022 21:18:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast05.extmail.prod.ext.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.55.21]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A2281121314 for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2022 21:18:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-2.mimecast.com [205.139.110.61]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7DC7800882 for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2022 21:18:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.24]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-180-QNMWXN1MMdaJgx9vA-hVzA-1; Sun, 30 Jan 2022 16:18:54 -0500 X-MC-Unique: QNMWXN1MMdaJgx9vA-hVzA-1 Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24DDF3200953; Sun, 30 Jan 2022 16:18:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 30 Jan 2022 16:18:53 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:date:date:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=Yy9ivutiPNOnIPqBD PwIJwN/+HqGom7O+rd5Vb3QKO0=; b=FrkPdp5FSDeQRn1NlMZ68IwnHoGoNDXwg PV+bVGkAomX7uZArZWCh26SIJzDU3BN3vkUpHiF4q0nhvoaPJ8StOiN/jwnKH7I5 oOZkMjrvkkVduDgbFR14wFnfss2soy094IZAgsxxUHZxp3FYWgCuPpCAvkn483Gs 0UwJK5ZdMU2v246aaaaLqweD/m5tOaRYBnZIx/jU2Yp/meBOda6nlgTK66Zneq51 Ozwa4zZLiYAiUrBG+OnW3m22K/m1UJei1LKtd6tImfkzLJ5P1Zn3fMQln1nFycxE G1nJPTFGU/HoJCOi0iY8PRpl5ApjBgcUKUTsdqDHi/hvqKmlZ43/w== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvvddrfeelgddugeekucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepfffhvffukfhfgggtuggjsehgtderredttddvnecuhfhrohhmpeffvghmihcu ofgrrhhivgcuqfgsvghnohhurhcuoeguvghmihesihhnvhhishhisghlvghthhhinhhgsh hlrggsrdgtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeeigfeifedvgfejleefieefgfejvddv feelgeelieefgeffhffgffeffffhueduheenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurf grrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpeguvghmihesihhnvhhishhisghlvghthhhinhhgshhl rggsrdgtohhm X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sun, 30 Jan 2022 16:18:52 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2022 16:17:17 -0500 From: Demi Marie Obenour To: Gionatan Danti Message-ID: References: <6da8a7fc-4ca4-9c1d-c547-dcba827c5c99@gmail.com> <4bb347f0-b63b-d6f6-d501-1318053d0e56@gmail.com> <849ab633-ec3d-a0a5-38bf-72b87bbba2c5@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.78 on 10.11.54.3 X-loop: linux-lvm@redhat.com Cc: LVM general discussion and development Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] LVM performance vs direct dm-thin X-BeenThere: linux-lvm@redhat.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: junk Reply-To: LVM general discussion and development List-Id: LVM general discussion and development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2048295913895505818==" Sender: linux-lvm-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: linux-lvm-bounces@redhat.com X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.16 --===============2048295913895505818== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="8VD6qVE7SRgJDQA+" Content-Disposition: inline --8VD6qVE7SRgJDQA+ Content-Type: text/plain; protected-headers=v1; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2022 16:17:17 -0500 From: Demi Marie Obenour To: Gionatan Danti Cc: LVM general discussion and development Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] LVM performance vs direct dm-thin On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 09:27:56PM +0100, Gionatan Danti wrote: > Il 2022-01-30 18:43 Zdenek Kabelac ha scritto: > > Chain filesystem->block_layer->filesystem->block_layer is something > > you most likely do not want to use for any well performing solution... > > But it's ok for testing... >=20 > I second that. >=20 > Demi Marie - just a question: are you sure do you really needs a block > device? I don't know QubeOS, but both KVM and Xen can use files as virtual > disks. This would enable you to ignore loopback mounts. On Xen, the paravirtualised block backend driver (blkback) requires a block device, so file-based virtual disks are implemented with a loop device managed by the toolstack. Suggestions for improving this less-than-satisfactory situation are welcome. --=20 Sincerely, Demi Marie Obenour (she/her/hers) Invisible Things Lab --8VD6qVE7SRgJDQA+ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEdodNnxM2uiJZBxxxsoi1X/+cIsEFAmH3ALoACgkQsoi1X/+c IsGNoRAAmQNwX/6xmAR8OVEsQFo877UYbpwIDoeid1hoN0SjKAX6LpvqJuHv3Evm k+Ff94ZNxe4cYY6DTfAT2PGk3Sn2BJKbozUIx3ZGPzkqhSYIbDqaDg1KdP9q+O0B 3YpmF4ddmv3BIHwLMvMlAsGHdfMZPP1Fp1Tb92/11NjjvPrbdSXOxHzKXCNBTeQh d7DfAOspZRszg/ijALr/iadvhwjyyuW+GorpvC6tmdzr7X1RtNW00KvCnO/qyuaV 80HXlmg0gkku194rxnnVYeGUot4ODP9R3gW1V8EC0aEpBTAf5LU0H3tQ2P1kz1qj lqjJuih8AltQm7zQJYUBBTRM6UCexXvi/tgi63QD9z5edHIJGHP4czDtKuWMJdUv O7xVb2lU7eBy94o/Xg3dgGt8xRLJ3y1B0J/C75RY0eZ1nENyz2Y4FYSlc3rc0qVS +lVRq+uwWB+0o/EzOXjRI+SNtd3JdyUTHIEHMH34EV0J5loeQGveIkHHPJ/ZIi22 8/ujemETUgi0QYj/mmNLAW2lpkP3v8GZgHZpGOy1IT7SSya3Nx1FOwXD0CX8+lj3 xtfsSK2PFR9dwHtFDsqMJWnijff0DRr0rHoJdtAY6iu7ijVVdkCDc9IHNk2u6x/6 ByEx/6w0tt2BAIrb3SSfT0ujSwsggBV4C2lw1aKecOpcZmHr2m4= =ngVF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --8VD6qVE7SRgJDQA+-- --===============2048295913895505818== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ linux-lvm mailing list linux-lvm@redhat.com https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/ --===============2048295913895505818==--