On Fri, 08/25 15:44, Max Reitz wrote: > Well, OK. The main argument against supporting anything but qcow2 is > "if you want features, use qcow2; and we are working on making qcow2 as > fast as possible." I think that's a very good argument still. At some > point I (and probably others, too) had the idea of making qcow2 files in > raw layout:
Yes! I think this idea makes a whole lot of sense, too. Metadata tables can be generated so old implementation can still use it. Fam > Have the data as a blob, just like a raw file, padded by > metadata around it. An autoclear flag would specify that the qcow2 file > is in this format, and if so, you could simply access it like a raw file > and should have exactly the same speed as a raw file. Maybe that would > solve this whole issue, too?
