Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] LVM snapshot performance issue -- why isn't thin provisioning the default?

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Eric Harney wrote: > On 09/18/2015 03:33 PM, John Griffith wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Eric Harney > wrote: > > > >> On 09/18/2015 01:01 PM, John Griffith wrote: > >>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Chris Friesen < > >> chris.frie...@windriver.

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] LVM snapshot performance issue -- why isn't thin provisioning the default?

On 09/18/2015 03:33 PM, John Griffith wrote: > On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Eric Harney wrote: > >> On 09/18/2015 01:01 PM, John Griffith wrote: >>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Chris Friesen < >> chris.frie...@windriver.com> >>> wrote: >>> On 09/18/2015 06:57 AM, Eric Harney wrote:

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] LVM snapshot performance issue -- why isn't thin provisioning the default?

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Eric Harney wrote: > On 09/18/2015 01:01 PM, John Griffith wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Chris Friesen < > chris.frie...@windriver.com> > > wrote: > > > >> On 09/18/2015 06:57 AM, Eric Harney wrote: > >> > >>> On 09/17/2015 06:06 PM, John Griffith w

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] LVM snapshot performance issue -- why isn't thin provisioning the default?

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Chris Friesen wrote: > On 09/18/2015 12:11 PM, John Griffith wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Chris Friesen < >> chris.frie...@windriver.com >> > wrote: >> >> On 09/18/2015 11:01 AM, John Griffith wrote:

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] LVM snapshot performance issue -- why isn't thin provisioning the default?

On 09/18/2015 01:01 PM, John Griffith wrote: > On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Chris Friesen > wrote: > >> On 09/18/2015 06:57 AM, Eric Harney wrote: >> >>> On 09/17/2015 06:06 PM, John Griffith wrote: >>> >> >> Having the "global conf" settings intermixed with the backend sections caused a

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] LVM snapshot performance issue -- why isn't thin provisioning the default?

On 09/18/2015 12:11 PM, John Griffith wrote: On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Chris Friesen mailto:chris.frie...@windriver.com>> wrote: On 09/18/2015 11:01 AM, John Griffith wrote: On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Chris Friesen mailto:chris.frie...@windriver.com>

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] LVM snapshot performance issue -- why isn't thin provisioning the default?

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Chris Friesen wrote: > On 09/18/2015 11:01 AM, John Griffith wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Chris Friesen < >> chris.frie...@windriver.com >> > wrote: >> >> On 09/18/2015 06:57 AM, Eric Harney wrote: >>

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] LVM snapshot performance issue -- why isn't thin provisioning the default?

On 09/18/2015 11:01 AM, John Griffith wrote: On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Chris Friesen mailto:chris.frie...@windriver.com>> wrote: On 09/18/2015 06:57 AM, Eric Harney wrote: On 09/17/2015 06:06 PM, John Griffith wrote: Having the "global conf" settings intermixe

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] LVM snapshot performance issue -- why isn't thin provisioning the default?

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Chris Friesen wrote: > On 09/18/2015 06:57 AM, Eric Harney wrote: > >> On 09/17/2015 06:06 PM, John Griffith wrote: >> > > Having the "global conf" settings intermixed with the backend sections >>> caused a number of issues when we first started working on this.

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] LVM snapshot performance issue -- why isn't thin provisioning the default?

On 09/18/2015 06:57 AM, Eric Harney wrote: On 09/17/2015 06:06 PM, John Griffith wrote: Having the "global conf" settings intermixed with the backend sections caused a number of issues when we first started working on this. That's part of why we require the "self.configuration" usage all over

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] LVM snapshot performance issue -- why isn't thin provisioning the default?

On 09/17/2015 06:06 PM, John Griffith wrote: > On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Eric Harney wrote: > >> On 09/17/2015 05:00 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote: >>> On 16 September 2015 at 23:43, Eric Harney wrote: >>> Currently, at least some options set in [DEFAULT] don't apply to per-driver se

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] LVM snapshot performance issue -- why isn't thin provisioning the default?

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Eric Harney wrote: > On 09/17/2015 05:00 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote: > > On 16 September 2015 at 23:43, Eric Harney wrote: > > > >> Currently, at least some options set in [DEFAULT] don't apply to > >> per-driver sections, and require you to set them in the driver

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] LVM snapshot performance issue -- why isn't thin provisioning the default?

On 09/17/2015 05:00 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote: > On 16 September 2015 at 23:43, Eric Harney wrote: > >> Currently, at least some options set in [DEFAULT] don't apply to >> per-driver sections, and require you to set them in the driver section >> as well. >> > > This is extremely confusing behaviou

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] LVM snapshot performance issue -- why isn't thin provisioning the default?

On 16 September 2015 at 23:43, Eric Harney wrote: > Currently, at least some options set in [DEFAULT] don't apply to > per-driver sections, and require you to set them in the driver section > as well. > This is extremely confusing behaviour. Do you have any examples? I'm not sure if we can fix i

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] LVM snapshot performance issue -- why isn't thin provisioning the default?

On 09/16/2015 04:25 PM, Duncan Thomas wrote: > On 16 Sep 2015 20:42, "yang, xing" wrote: > >> On 9/16/15, 1:20 PM, "Eric Harney" wrote: > >>> This sounds like a good idea, I'm just not sure how to structure it yet >>> without creating a very confusing set of config options. >> >> I’m thinking w

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] LVM snapshot performance issue -- why isn't thin provisioning the default?

On 16 Sep 2015 20:42, "yang, xing" wrote: > On 9/16/15, 1:20 PM, "Eric Harney" wrote: > >This sounds like a good idea, I'm just not sure how to structure it yet > >without creating a very confusing set of config options. > > I’m thinking we could have a prefix with vendor name for this and it a

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] LVM snapshot performance issue -- why isn't thin provisioning the default?

Hi Eric, Please see my replies inline below. Thanks, Xing On 9/16/15, 1:20 PM, "Eric Harney" wrote: >On 09/15/2015 04:56 PM, yang, xing wrote: >> Hi Eric, >> >> Regarding the default max_over_subscription_ratio, I initially set the >> default to 1 while working on oversubscription, and chang

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] LVM snapshot performance issue -- why isn't thin provisioning the default?

On 09/15/2015 04:56 PM, yang, xing wrote: > Hi Eric, > > Regarding the default max_over_subscription_ratio, I initially set the > default to 1 while working on oversubscription, and changed it to 2 after > getting review comments. After it was merged, I got feedback that 2 is > too small and 20 i

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] LVM snapshot performance issue -- why isn't thin provisioning the default?

> > I'm currently trying to work around an issue where activating LVM > > snapshots created through cinder takes potentially a long time. [[ thick LVM snapshot performance problem ]] > > Given the above, is there any reason why we couldn't make thin > > provisioning the default? > > My intention

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] LVM snapshot performance issue -- why isn't thin provisioning the default?

Hi Eric, Regarding the default max_over_subscription_ratio, I initially set the default to 1 while working on oversubscription, and changed it to 2 after getting review comments. After it was merged, I got feedback that 2 is too small and 20 is more appropriated, so I changed it to 20. So it loo

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] LVM snapshot performance issue -- why isn't thin provisioning the default?

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Eric Harney wrote: > On 09/15/2015 01:00 PM, Chris Friesen wrote: > > I'm currently trying to work around an issue where activating LVM > > snapshots created through cinder takes potentially a long time. > > (Linearly related to the amount of data that differs be

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] LVM snapshot performance issue -- why isn't thin provisioning the default?

On 09/15/2015 01:00 PM, Chris Friesen wrote: > I'm currently trying to work around an issue where activating LVM > snapshots created through cinder takes potentially a long time. > (Linearly related to the amount of data that differs between the > original volume and the snapshot.) On one system

[openstack-dev] [cinder] LVM snapshot performance issue -- why isn't thin provisioning the default?

I'm currently trying to work around an issue where activating LVM snapshots created through cinder takes potentially a long time. (Linearly related to the amount of data that differs between the original volume and the snapshot.) On one system I tested it took about one minute per 25GB of data