On Thu, 13 Apr 2017, Xen wrote:
Stuart Gathman schreef op 13-04-2017 17:29:
IMO, the friendliest thing to do is to freeze the pool in read-only mode
just before running out of metadata.
It's not about metadata but about physical extents.
In the thin pool.
Ok. My understanding is that
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017, Xen wrote:
Stuart Gathman schreef op 13-04-2017 17:29:
understand and recover. A sysadmin could have a plain LV for the
system volume, so that logs and stuff would still be kept, and admin
logins work normally. There is no panic, as the data is there read-only.
Stuart Gathman schreef op 13-04-2017 17:29:
IMO, the friendliest thing to do is to freeze the pool in read-only
mode
just before running out of metadata.
It's not about metadata but about physical extents.
In the thin pool.
While still involving application
level data loss (the data it
On 04/13/2017 10:33 AM, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
>
>
> Now when you have thin-pool - it cause quite a lot of trouble across
> number of layers. There are solvable and being fixed.
>
> But as the rule #1 still applies - do not run your thin-pool out of
> space - it will not always heal easily without
Zdenek Kabelac schreef op 13-04-2017 16:33:
Hello
Just let's repeat.
Full thin-pool is NOT in any way comparable to full filesystem.
Full filesystem has ALWAYS room for its metadata - it's not pretending
it's bigger - it has 'finite' space and expect this space to just BE
there.
Now when
Dne 13.4.2017 v 15:52 Xen napsal(a):
Stuart Gathman schreef op 13-04-2017 14:59:
If you are going to keep snapshots around indefinitely, the thinpools
are probably the way to go. (What happens when you fill up those?
Hopefully it "freezes" the pool rather than losing everything.)
My
Using a classic snapshot for backup does not normally involve activating
a large CoW. I generally create a smallish snapshot (a few gigs), that
will not fill up during the backup process. If for some reason, a
snapshot were to fill up before backup completion, reads from the
snapshot get I/O
Gionatan Danti schreef op 13-04-2017 12:20:
Hi,
anyone with other thoughts on the matter?
I wondered why a single thin LV does work for you in terms of not
wasting space or being able to make more efficient use of "volumes" or
client volumes or whatever.
But a multitude of thin volumes
On 06/04/2017 16:31, Gionatan Danti wrote:
Hi all,
I'm seeking some advice for a new virtualization system (KVM) on top of
LVM. The goal is to take agentless backups via LVM snapshots.
In short: what you suggest to snapshot a quite big (8+ TB) volume?
Classic LVM (with old snapshot behavior) or
