The test itself is a simple usage of SQLite. It is stock KVM as available in 2.6.31 on Ubuntu Karmic. So it would be the environment, not the test. So assuming that KVM upstream works as expected that would leave either 2.6.31 having an issue, or Ubuntu having an issue. Care to make an assertion on the KVM in 2.6.31? Leaving only Ubuntu's installation. Can some KVM developers attempt to confirm that a 'correctly' configured KVM will not demonstrate this behaviour? http://www.phoronix-test-suite.com/ (or is already available in newer distributions of Fedora, openSUSE and Ubuntu. Regards... Matthew On 9/24/09, Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 09/24/2009 03:31 PM, Matthew Tippett wrote: >> Thanks Avi, >> >> I am still trying to reconcile the your statement with the potential >> data risks and the numbers observed. >> >> My read of your response is that the guest sees a consistent view - >> the data is commited to the virtual disk device. Does a synchronous >> write within the guest trigger a synchronous write of the virtual >> device within the host? >> > > Yes. > >> I don't think offering SQLite users a 10 fold increase in performance >> with no data integrity risks just by using KVM is a sane proposition. >> > > It isn't, my guess is that the test setup is broken somehow. > > -- > Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to > panic. > > -- Sent from my mobile device -- 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
