Received: from mx1.redhat.com (ext-mx13.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.110.18]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qA34QTIv017662 for ; Sat, 3 Nov 2012 00:26:30 -0400 Received: from smtp3.pacifier.net (smtp3.pacifier.net [64.255.237.177]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qA34QSWj031698 for ; Sat, 3 Nov 2012 00:26:29 -0400 Received: from laptop.localnet (ip136.133.dsl-acs2.pdx.iinet.com [209.20.133.136]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp3.pacifier.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 746EC38F2D for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 21:26:28 -0700 (PDT) From: ben Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 21:26:26 -0700 Message-ID: <1999397.ymMrq1jpYJ@laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: [linux-lvm] Do thin volumes use allocation policy? Reply-To: LVM general discussion and development List-Id: LVM general discussion and development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: To: linux-lvm@redhat.com Do thin volumes still use allocation policy like normal volumes? That seems against the general idea of having a pool. Especially when the actual device in use isn't displayed anyhere. The output of lvs show the allocation policy of thin volumes as follows: lvs LV VG Attr LSize Pool Origin Data% Move Log Copy% Convert Pool1 vg01 twi-a-tz- 17.71g 0.00 Thin1 vg01 Vwa-a-tz- 10.00g Pool1 0.00 The lvchange command and some of the others use allocation policy on thin volumes too.