On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 07:10:00AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > Well, except for QEMU/KVM, Kevin has already confirmed that using > > > Direct I/O is a completely viable solution. (And I'll add it solves a > > > bunch of other problems, including page cache efficiency....) > > Sure, O_DIRECT does make this simpler (though it's not always the most > efficient way to do I/O). I'm more interested in whether we can improve > the error handling with buffered I/O. I just want to make sure we're designing a solution that will actually be _used_, because it is a good fit for at least one real-world use case. Is QEMU/KVM using volumes that are stored over NFS really used in the real world? Especially one where you want a huge amount of reliability and recovery after some kind network failure? If we are talking about customers who are going to suspend the VM and restart it on another server, that presumes a fairly large installation size and enough servers that would they *really* want to use a single point of failure such as an NFS filer? Even if it was a proprietary purpose-built NFS filer? Why wouldn't they be using RADOS and Ceph instead, for example? - Ted -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
