On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 11:44, Chris Adams <cmadams@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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). I wonder if the btrfs solution would be that you would just use raw partitions and not use btrfs for it. eg /dev/sda1 is /boot /dev/sda2 is swap /dev/sda3 is btrfs / /dev/sda4 is VM-01 /dev/sda5 is VM-02 -- Stephen J Smoogen. "The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance." Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University. "Let us be kind, one to another, for most of us are fighting a hard battle." -- Ian MacLaren -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
