BTRFS vs LVM for VM storage (was: Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 02:51:50PM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
> 2) Fedora 16 ships without LVM as the volume manager and instead use
> BTRFS's built in volume management, again just for the default.

Sorry I'm a bit late on this gentle discussion, but I have one
question about this:

I use LVM to store virtual machines, one VM per LV, and it's very good
for that.

How is BTRFS's performance when used to store VMs (presumably they are
stored as files)?

Rich.

-- 
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
libguestfs lets you edit virtual machines.  Supports shell scripting,
bindings from many languages.  http://libguestfs.org
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux