On Fri 16 Aug 2019 04:08:19 PM CEST, Kevin Wolf wrote: >> And yes, the odd value on the 512KB row on that we discussed last month >> is due to this same bug: >> >> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-block/2019-07/msg00496.html > > Hm... And suddently it makes sense. :-) > > So I assume all of 512k/1024k/2048k actually perform better? Or is the > effect neglegible for 1024k/2048k?
The 512K case is the only one that performs better, my test image was too small (40 GB) for the other cases. Berto
