2017-09-12 13:39 GMT+03:00 Marat Khalili <m...@rqc.ru>: > On 12/09/17 13:01, Duncan wrote: >> >> AFAIK that's wrong -- the only time the app should see the error on btrfs >> raid1 is if the second copy is also bad > > So thought I, but... > >> IIRC from what I've read on-list, qcow2 isn't the best alternative for >> hosting VMs on >> top of btrfs. > > Yeah, I've seen discussions about it here too, but in my case VMs write very > little (mostly logs and distro updates), so I decided it can live as it is > for a while. But I'm looking for better solutions as long as they are not > too complicated. > > > On 12/09/17 13:32, Adam Borowski wrote: >> >> Just use raw -- btrfs already has every feature that qcow2 has, and does >> it >> better. This doesn't mean btrfs is the best choice for hosting VM files, >> just that raw-over-btrfs is strictly better than qcow2-over-btrfs. > > Thanks for advice, I wasn't sure I won't lose features, and was too lazy to > investigate/ask. Now it looks simple. > > -- > > With Best Regards, > Marat Khalili > -- > 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
The main problem with Raw over Btrfs is that (IIRC) no one support btrfs features. - Patches for libvirt not merged and obsolete - Patches for Proxmox also not merged - Other VM hypervisor like Virtualbox, VMware just ignore btrfs features. So with raw you will have a problems like: no snapshot support But yes, raw over btrfs the best performance wise solution. -- Have a nice day, Timofey. -- 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
