On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 11:16:42AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > > if scsi is used, you incur the cost of virtualization, > > if virtio is used, your guests fsyncs incur less cost. > > > >So back to the question to the kvm team. It appears that with the > >stock KVM setup customers who need higher data integrity (through > >fsync) should steer away from virtio for the moment. > > > >Is that assessment correct? > > > > Christoph, wasn't there a bug where the guest didn't wait for requests > in response to a barrier request? Can't remember anything like that. The "bug" was the complete lack of cache flush infrastructure for virtio, and the lack of advertising a volative write cache on ide. -- 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
