On 06/25/2015 06:44 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
Gordon Messmer gordon.messmer at gmail.com Wed Jun 24 01:42:13 UTC 2015
I wondered the same thing, especially in the context of someone who
prefers virtual machines. LV-backed VMs have *dramatically* better disk
performance than file-backed VMs.
I did a bunch of testing of Raw, qcow2, and LV backed VM storage circa
Fedora 19/20 and found very little difference. What mattered most was
the (libvirt) cache setting, accessible by virsh edit the xml config
or virt-manager through the GUI. There have been a lot of
Which setting did you find most effective?
optimizations in libvirt and qemu that make qcow2 files perform
comparable to LVs.
For migrating VMs, it's easier if they're a file. And qcow2 snapshots
are more practical than LVM (thick) snapshots. The thin snapshots are
quite good though they take a lot of familiarity with setting them up.
--
Stephen Clark
*NetWolves Managed Services, LLC.*
Director of Technology
Phone: 813-579-3200
Fax: 813-882-0209
Email: steve.clark@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.netwolves.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
