Once upon a time, Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said: > These sort of issues are my priority and I've spent the last 2 months > specifically working on the kvm performance differences between ext4 > and btrfs. Now we're not on par with ext4 yet, but we aren't 2-3 > times slower any more, maybe at the most we're 20% slower. Thanks, How does it compare to straight LVM for virtual images? I create a big LV and then only use part of it for the host OS VG; when I create VMs, I create a VG for each (or I can snapshot an existing "base" VG). It is my understanding that one goal for btrfs is to take LVM out of the picture for the common case; i.e. btrfs can do its own logical volume management. If that's the case, there needs to be something comparable to the VM-on-VG setup (in terms of ease-of-management and performance). -- Chris Adams <cmadams@xxxxxxxxxx> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
