I think in principle: No.
It is something that should be documented as advise in the VM software
documentation. But things like storage management is the domain of the
distribution or systems administrator.
There might be a situation where the VM software can directly use a
btrfs filesystem for it's storage engines where it could be sensible to
add such a thing, but in that case it's already directly managing it's
subvolumes and can turn nodatacow on/off when appropriate.
In that case it would probably also be using some of it's higher level
functions for snapshotting, acls and possibly metadata (and not as a
dumb container for disk images).
So if the VM software would be controlling the filesystem directly, than
it could be useful but would probably be better achieved using different
options.
If the VM software is merely using it to store image files, than it
would be up to the distribution/systems administrator to set a '+C' on
the directory where the images will be stored (that flag were being
inherited iirc).
A distribution could easily try marking the default images directory
with '+C' on installation for "Joe Average" user (when he decides to do
things differently, than that's his conscious choice). But it could also
decide that a better default would be to use a entirely different
subvolume for VM images, with another raid level and no compression but
with CoW enabled by default (and thus relying on autodefrag to work).
It should simply be a matter of: Who manages the storage decides how it
should be configured and whether not to do CoW is an aspect of
configuration.
Regards,
justin....
On 21-02-14 17:55, Chris Murphy wrote:
Use case is a user who doesn't know that today xattr +C ought to be set on vm
images when on Btrfs. They use e.g. Gnome Boxes, or Virtual Machine Manager
(virt-manager) to configure pools, images, and VMs.
If libvirt were to set +C on any containing directory configured as a pool,
then any copied as well as newly created images would inherit +C. So is this
the long term recommended practice, and should various VM projects be asked to
build this functionality? Or will there be optimizations, such as autodefrag,
that will obviate the need for +C on such VM images in the somewhat near future?
Chris Murphy--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
