On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 01:25:20PM +0200, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > ). I think it would be nicer to be consistent > > with that for preallocation and not return an error either in this case. > > I am not convinced this is the right thing to do. Perhaps sparse > allocation, or not, does not make a big difference, but prealloc does. Big speed difference during win7 installations? or are you thinking of another big difference? sparse/non-sparse allocation can make a big difference on disk usage, which is a big diference as well imo. I agree with you that erroring out is better, but I tend to prefer consistency in cases like this. Christophe
Attachment:
pgpql4nu4OHTT.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list