From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <oscar@dearriba.es> 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)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 639499247F for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 28 Dec 2022 12:26:42 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3E71B2430D for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 28 Dec 2022 12:26:12 +0100 (CET) Received: from wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.25]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 28 Dec 2022 12:26:10 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CC683200953; Wed, 28 Dec 2022 06:19:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from imap50 ([10.202.2.100]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 28 Dec 2022 06:19:53 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dearriba.es; h= cc:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1672226392; x=1672312792; bh=7vbHe/ByzJ 52UV+CgANTAOICAIiWeHm7mYWBx+FaLhY=; b=SN2cf4z+1hBiBnzVhAZ2hd7pi+ pivRM3lpvQpn1OOgyAQRBJUqRBaTA1Kb2eumuUTLo3xlTIQF2pRaETNUg71Nza2P tkYSJxpu4xurOruy2i/L5hChstXP4AGSVcOxZF5+EJqUIyuu6v1vk8vAhXTh211A Jq9gjFAJ6X+FuX+897Vx97/IJ8Qg4Yp2fIxamfamdBRS7Ic1beBQbBpzIsEYpJkV uymY+NvSBewnGwuhJkCOm1InvMSOS8CwAH4tWNbL+86eO/DqEuSrue790I+LKeUm cyd69hLbjO1NPpDU+I0tf640Kc/IeopI99wXLwruz7zCzGAN+Uijl73N++4g== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:date:feedback-id :feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id :mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to :x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm2; t=1672226392; x=1672312792; bh=7vbHe/ByzJ52UV+CgANTAOICAIiW eHm7mYWBx+FaLhY=; b=MKeDKYTI5v1bH1eHf2XunO19bJ2U72pSbwDbJXnnihdr 5Q00Dn+/scBYREGAIuCAef/97Edxs889ftuxkpB10mCzCvqkB7DW3fU+gjS2u9bd IDgUXZo1VaCaluJVVT0MAI2VO7G/q5BM7Yn2+PtUuVCxuF1YO25TWNJ5fUroAZtt 3AT3WInUIWu/dS+ZEhna/dajqGIE/2DDr1JtMUEby1Aesuvc9hNL8Xn5dQiaOAyU +b46EPVA2gyzJMtQRAaMeS+VBOYDZNexW963YtYtDwJph8AmeziGJELsJAMG0owM aBsWhrpPiBgazV6TVWarD69ox+YhSMaNN78SWu8O8Q== X-ME-Sender: <xms:WCasY8PYZw94QovnBUaNf73TIDx-xjoVdB-CXGnwcIYbTBkfuRWLVw> <xme:WCasYy-ZsBHlFxFhnKR3p_ovdxRy9hZtyJaZffQZCmGRSTf1kZRsu5tYtJmhkGVdn PS1i_rjMXcqOsIxB2c> X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedriedvgddvjecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtsegrtderreerreejnecuhfhrohhmpenmshgtrghr ucguvgcutehrrhhisggruceoohhstggrrhesuggvrghrrhhisggrrdgvsheqnecuggftrf grthhtvghrnhephedtteeukeefhfeukeelieefteegfeekkefhkeekgfeijeelkeehtdej leduueeknecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomh epohhstggrrhesuggvrghrrhhisggrrdgvsh X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:WCasYzTLhSJbWSew5QmTxEq0enzklVI9WzqxMlJD4e1sXIGSIgwSfg> <xmx:WCasY0upW5iNQHLgDdexiDA9tiufuq0rOya00KicRwD41RCN6gVXiA> <xmx:WCasY0c7iJAmKFM3nZcc9rPAfShqmCPV39i8h9EyF_RzXfhOLSyDaQ> <xmx:WCasY-oid7sycKScCRTnt30xhICZqATSiUs6H-QiS7ZKDdbFqHTBnA> Feedback-ID: ib1694623:Fastmail Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 63F1D1700089; Wed, 28 Dec 2022 06:19:52 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.7.0-alpha0-1185-g841157300a-fm-20221208.002-g84115730 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <41f85334-834c-4534-916d-39bf5e382c75@app.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5b795a94-ebd3-7793-a7c3-4567cd1b04f0@c2n.upsaclay.fr> References: <c9aa3de9-01e8-4728-8344-6452c1bb0f3e@app.fastmail.com> <5b795a94-ebd3-7793-a7c3-4567cd1b04f0@c2n.upsaclay.fr> Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2022 12:19:31 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?Q?=C3=93scar_de_Arriba?= <oscar@dearriba.es> To: "Proxmox VE user list" <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>, alain.pean@c2n.upsaclay.fr X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 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 DKIM_VALID_EF -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from envelope-from domain HTML_MESSAGE 0.001 HTML included in message JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL 0.5 SPF set to ?all RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW -0.7 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, low trust RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2 -0.001 Average reputation (+2) SPF_HELO_PASS -0.001 SPF: HELO matches SPF record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 Subject: Re: [PVE-User] Thin LVM showing more used space than expected X-BeenThere: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE user list <pve-user.lists.proxmox.com> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-user>, <mailto:pve-user-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-user/> List-Post: <mailto:pve-user@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pve-user-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user>, <mailto:pve-user-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2022 11:26:42 -0000 Hi Alain, Thanks for taking time to answer my message. I think Proxmox UI is showing the % of wearout consumed. I just checked = SMART using smartctl and it is showing 2.86 TB witten of a maximum of 18= 0 TBW of this model (6%). I think those numbers are too much for the usage of this drive, but the = number of power on hours match (52 days). I think the TBW are elevated b= ecause we had an instance with swap actived and that could generate s lo= t of IO (that's no longer the case from a couple of weeks ago). However, the strange behaviour of showing much more space used than the = sum of VM disks + snapshots continue, and I'm really worried that the pe= rformance issue after copying some data can come from that situation. Al= so, the unit is showing now a 96% of space used, which worries me about = decreased performance because of fragmentation issues. Oscar On Wed, Dec 28, 2022, at 11:52, Alain P=C3=A9an wrote: > Le 27/12/2022 =C3=A0 18:54, =C3=93scar de Arriba a =C3=A9crit : > > For storage, I'm using a commercial Crucial MX500 SATA SSD connected= directly to the motherboard controller (no PCIe HBA for the system+data= disk) and it is brand new - and S.M.A.R.T. checks are passing, only 4% = of wearout. >=20 > Hi Oscar, >=20 > Just to be sure, because normally wearout is 100% when the SSD is new,=20 > You are just soustracting, and it is in fact 100-4 =3D 96% ? > My SSDs (Dell mixed use) after some years are still at 99%, so I am=20 > wondering about 4%... >=20 > Alain >=20 > --=20 > Administrateur Syst=C3=A8me/R=C3=A9seau > C2N Centre de Nanosciences et Nanotechnologies (UMR 9001) > Boulevard Thomas Gobert (ex Avenue de La Vauve), 91120 Palaiseau > Tel : 01-70-27-06-88 Bureau A255 >=20 >=20