On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 07:28:53PM +0900, Hitoshi Mitake wrote:
dog vdi snapshot vdi --no-share has a bottleneck: the dog
process. This patch adds a new option --fast-deep-copy to dog vdi
snapshot, which avoid the bottleneck.
It seems to me --no-share and --fast-deep-copy has some relations,
Am 2015-02-03 04:47, schrieb Liu Yuan:
It seems to me --no-share and --fast-deep-copy has some relations, they
all try
to achieve the same purpose, right? But the wording quit differs, which
might
cause troulbe for uesrs to understand.
How about --no-share and --no-share-fast?
Cheers
2015-01-20 6:00 GMT+03:00 Hitoshi Mitake mitake.hito...@lab.ntt.co.jp:
Because it employes an agressive method and is not well tested yet.
Ok, thanks.
--
Vasiliy Tolstov,
e-mail: v.tols...@selfip.ru
jabber: v...@selfip.ru
--
sheepdog mailing list
sheepdog@lists.wpkg.org
At Mon, 19 Jan 2015 16:23:34 +0400,
Vasiliy Tolstov wrote:
2015-01-19 13:28 GMT+03:00 Hitoshi Mitake mitake.hito...@lab.ntt.co.jp:
dog vdi snapshot vdi --no-share has a bottleneck: the dog
process. This patch adds a new option --fast-deep-copy to dog vdi
snapshot, which avoid the
dog vdi snapshot vdi --no-share has a bottleneck: the dog
process. This patch adds a new option --fast-deep-copy to dog vdi
snapshot, which avoid the bottleneck.
If the option is passed to the dog command, actual copying of data
objects are done by sheep processes. So the dog process isn't a
2015-01-19 13:28 GMT+03:00 Hitoshi Mitake mitake.hito...@lab.ntt.co.jp:
dog vdi snapshot vdi --no-share has a bottleneck: the dog
process. This patch adds a new option --fast-deep-copy to dog vdi
snapshot, which avoid the bottleneck.
If the option is passed to the dog command, actual copying
