[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [linux-lvm] Why does every lvm command insist on touching every pv?

On 06/18/10 10:27, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
> Dne 17.6.2010 15:53, Takahiro Yasui napsal(a):
>> On 06/17/10 04:23, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
>>> Dne 16.6.2010 21:27, Takahiro Yasui napsal(a):
>>>> On 06/16/10 05:30, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
>>>>> Dne 16.6.2010 02:34, Phillip Susi napsal(a):
>>>>>> On 06/15/2010 04:41 PM, Takahiro Yasui wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>>> What if I don't want ANY devices to be scanned every time an lvm command
>>>>>> is run?  Shouldn't they be scanned once when udev first detects they
>>>>>> have been attached, and no more?  I thought removing /dev from the scan=
>>>>>> line would do that, but it didn't.
>> ...
>>>> It is helpful if udev can handle this issue, but I'm wondering how it can
>>>> do it.
>>> I'm not working on this part, but AFAIK, once we could start 'trust' udev, we
>>> can keep persistent cache aware of any changes that might have happened to
>>> devices listed in metadata. Implementation details are still 'moving topic'.
>>> Obviously you can not skip write/update access to metadata areas, but it
>>> should be possible to avoid scanning for 'read-only' data access.
>> Thank you for your explanation. Yes, I agree that it is possible to avoid
>> scanning for 'read-only' data access, but I also believe it is possible for
>> 'write' adata access.
> With current LVM logic - you can't proceed with usage of LVM metadata unless
> they are properly committed to PVs.  i.e. there is no chance you could use
> partially stored metadata to just some cached devices. Either you update all
> metadata or you fail - there is nothing between these 2 states.

I agree with you comment in terms that every metadata stored on PVs in the
same VG which are being manipulated should be committed, but I don't think
metadata stored on PVs which belong to *different* VGs need to be committed.

For example, there are six PVs and two VGs as below:

  VG1: PV1, PV2, PV3
  VG2: PV4, PV5, PV6

If we create a new LV or delete VG1, then metadatas on only PV1, PV2, PV3
need to be updated but not for PV4, PV5, PV6.

>>> Also there is another thing in progress - metadata-balance code - where you
>>> essentially do not need to read/write metadata from/to every PV in VG - but
>>> just on reasonable safe amount of them - i.e. 5 from 100 of PVs - the rest of
>>> them is marked invisible (different from pvcreate --metadatasize 0)
>> AFAIK, metadata-balance feature would reduce the number of disk accesses,
>> but I believe that the goal is to access PVs related to the VG which lvm
>> command is going to manipulate. Introducing metadata cache feature on disk
>> or a kind of daemon managing all metadatas, or using /etc/lvm/backup could
>> be solution.
>> I hope we could continue discussing this topic on lvm-devel?
> Sure. Daemon is also planned, but for reduction of write access metadata
> balancing should greatly help.  Another step here could be to parallelize all
> disk operations on different devices. Also udev handling has some perfomance
> optimalization still.
> With properly working udev we shouldn't need to do any device scanning as we
> will have all 'interesting' devices stored in some cache storage - it could be
> file, daemon, udev DB entry....

I agree that these approach improve performance, but I don't think
accesses to devices which don't belong to a VG being handled are not


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]