Hi Matt, thanks for letting me know, we will definitely do reach you out if we start some activity in this area.
To answer your question: main reason for LVM is simplicity and performance. It seems from our benchmarks that LVM behavior when processing many IOPs (10s of thousands) is more stable than if filesystem is used as backend. Also a filesystem generally is heavier and more complex technology than LVM and we wanted to stay really as simple as possible on the IO datapath - to make everything (maintaining, tuning, configuring) easier. Do you see this as reasonable argumentation? Do you see some major benefits of file-based backend over the LVM one? Cheers, Prema On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Matthew Booth <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, Premysl, > > I'm not working on these features, however I am working in this area of code > implementing the libvirt storage pools spec. If anybody does start working > on this, please reach out to coordinate as I have a bunch of related > patches. My work should also make your features significantly easier to > implement. > > Out of curiosity, can you explain why you want to use LVM specifically over > the file-based backends? > > Matt __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
