From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98FAC71C56 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2021 11:29:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 83E1A17E4E for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2021 11:29:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp7.ngi.it (smtp7.ngi.it [IPv6:2001:4c91::23]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id AD21217E41 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2021 11:29:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from tank.sv.lnf.it (88-147-114-200.static.eolo.it [88.147.114.200]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp7.ngi.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E6196031D for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2021 11:28:48 +0200 (CEST) Authentication-Results: smtp7.ngi.it; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=sv.lnf.it header.i=@sv.lnf.it header.b="EEAVNhOL"; dkim-atps=neutral DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sv.lnf.it; s=2017; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID: Subject:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Cc:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=k8PgaWIOSGRGYQkOLV8bRHEpKC5x527tvmfdFdFQA80=; b=EEAVNhOLohui1DusPfq6MX2IAR ZWj4UTm4Nwsgi/FDj8jMcWWEwIQyITxFaY5I7PHPCKtsTRNWZmBXTT0K/DOGFydQBIBD3lHXSZWZc q1WtYVNYwG04ZABOfYOlD3xZlX1RGnz2VBOB2sprGHibHlxbfSwk4oMCGZbchupAnUAI=; Received: from [10.5.1.3] (helo=vdmsv1.ad.fvg.lnf.it) by tank.sv.lnf.it with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1lyWWW-0001fT-9M for pve-user@lists.proxmox.com; Wed, 30 Jun 2021 11:28:48 +0200 Received: from [10.5.1.44] (helo=hermione.sv.lnf.it) by vdmsv1.ad.fvg.lnf.it with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1lyWWV-0002UB-Il for pve-user@lists.proxmox.com; Wed, 30 Jun 2021 11:28:47 +0200 Received: by hermione.sv.lnf.it (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6F109A00108; Wed, 30 Jun 2021 11:28:47 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2021 11:28:47 +0200 From: Marco Gaiarin To: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com Message-ID: <20210630092847.GG3262@sv.lnf.it> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 'Organization: Associazione La Nostra Famiglia - Polo FVG' 'From: Marco Gaiarin ' X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 1.061 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DKIM_SIGNED 0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid DKIM_VALID -0.1 Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature DKIM_VALID_AU -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL 0.5 SPF set to ?all SPF_HELO_PASS -0.001 SPF: HELO matches SPF record T_SPF_PERMERROR 0.01 SPF: test of record failed (permerror) URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [lanostrafamiglia.it, lnf.it] Subject: [PVE-User] Guest LVM2 overhead/usefulness for thin storages (Ceph, ZFS) X-BeenThere: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE user list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2021 09:29:33 -0000 A collegue here came from the old school of 'LVM everything', that surely make sense for 'phisical servers'. Also, point me that make sense also for some 'virtual servers' (or better, 'virtual storage') setup. EG, considering a SAN, splitting virtual volumes in predefined chunks (1/2TB) and 'recombine' them via LVM in the guest, permit to move around smaller volumes, transparently for the guest. But if we came to 'modern', thin storage, like ZFS or Ceph, this still make sense? Seems 'no' to me, seems to me only useful to add another layer of abstraction... and the same functionality can be achived splitting data in virtual disks as if was volumes, format with a single partition per disk, and eventually extend the disk... And, this layer, how does it 'cost'? Not only in the term of performance, but also functionality... eg, 'trim' can traverse correctly all the layers? I hope i was clear. Thanks. PS: i've tried to look at the wiki but found nothing; if i've missed something, point me to the doc! -- dott. Marco Gaiarin GNUPG Key ID: 240A3D66 Associazione ``La Nostra Famiglia'' http://www.lanostrafamiglia.it/ Polo FVG - Via della Bontà, 7 - 33078 - San Vito al Tagliamento (PN) marco.gaiarin(at)lanostrafamiglia.it t +39-0434-842711 f +39-0434-842797 Dona il 5 PER MILLE a LA NOSTRA FAMIGLIA! http://www.lanostrafamiglia.it/index.php/it/sostienici/5x1000 (cf 00307430132, categoria ONLUS oppure RICERCA SANITARIA)