On 08/27/2009 01:43 PM, Rusty Russell wrote:
Are you claiming qcow2 is unusual? I can believe snapshot is less common,
though I use it all the time.
You'd normally have to add a feature for something like this. I don't
think this is different.
Why do we need to add a feature for this?
Because cache=writeback should *not* lie to the guest?
No, it should.
There are two possible semantics to cache=writeback:
- simulate a drive with a huge write cache; use fsync() to implement
barriers
- tell the host that we aren't interested in data integrity, lie to the
guest to get best performance
The first semantic is not very useful; guests don't expect huge write
caches so you can't be sure of your integrity guarantees, and it's
slower than cache=none due to double caching and extra copies. The
second semantic is not useful for production, but is very useful for
testing out things where you aren't worries about host crashes and
you're usually rebooting the guest very often (you can't rely on guest
caches, so you want the host to cache).
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
