On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 03:51:30PM -0500, John Ferlan wrote:
On 02/03/2016 03:23 AM, Ján Tomko wrote:
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 11:14:01AM -0500, John Ferlan wrote:
On 02/02/2016 08:30 AM, Pavel Hrdina wrote:
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 09:11:51AM +0100, Ján Tomko wrote:
A thin pool is another layer on top of some of the LVs in the VG. I think it deserves a separate pool type.
I must agree with Jan, and also already wrote the same for v2 patch. The thin pool and thin LV shouldn't be mixed with normal logical pool even they share the same VG.
If LVM allows it, then who are we to say it cannot or shouldn't work or how it should be configured?
Even if they are mixed in the same VG, we could show the "thick" LVs in the type='logical' pool and the thin ones in type='thin'.
We could if our logic to create/build the pool was overhauled or perhaps support was added to have two volume groups use the same source device.
Since it's possible to place a thin_pool in the same vg as a snapshot and a "thick" lv, should we be in the business of splitting hairs and trying to define how things should be viewed?
We already are. E.g. in the 'fs' pool, we ignore fifos and subdirectories.
I don't see the benefit behind requiring the user to decide whether to have a libvirt pool view either thin lv's or non-thin lv's of their vg or requiring their vg to essentially be one thin-pool in order to support thin lv's, when we could support whatever configuration they've already developed.
The thin pool would view the thin volumes in a specific thin pool, not all thin pools in that VG.
If more work is done in LV pools - are we going to create new pool types for other lvm segtypes ("mirror", "stripe", "raid", etc.)? In order to display/fetch interesting or specific things about them?
AFAIK none of these create another pool on top of the VG. Jan