On 11/18/2015 10:03 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 17.11.2015 um 18:05 hat John Snow geschrieben: >> Still the subject of debate on-list, but the thought is roughly this: >> >> Bitmaps will be able to flush-to-file on close. (If they have no >> persistence data, it's a no-op (maybe.)) This might mean being flushed >> to their own BDS -- the one they are describing -- as a qcow2 extension. >> Or, it could be to an arbitrary new standalone file format designed for >> the sole purpose of containing bitmap data. >> >> The discussion hasn't progressed beyond "Max and Kevin do not think >> storing arbitrary bitmaps in .qcow2 files is a good idea." The logical >> conclusion is "We need a new standalone format, then" but we haven't >> decided what that format will look like or how it will be used. > > I think the actual logical conclusion is that you use qcow2 images in > order to use the feature. > > Kevin >
It's fine to say "To hell with raw," but for networked filesystems and other configurations that aren't using the qcow2 driver, I think it won't be a sufficient answer. qcow2 support is my first priority, but I think it can't be my only one.
