On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 12:02:26PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > My position is that we'll need a sparse image format well into the > future because while btrfs may be ubiquitous as a file system, IRL, > people transfer images around all of the time through dumb transports > like HTTP and fat-formatted USB keys. A 100GB image with 1GB allocated > cannot explode to 100GB just because HTTP is a dump transport. > > Where we should do copy-on-read is a different topic. Really, I should > have waited to share that feature to avoid confusing the current discussion.
Yes, we will need an image format forever. However I'd be a much happier camper if typical production setups wouldn't use them. Either way the qed image format is something that too me looks much better than qcow2, primarily due to the simpliciy. I haven't managed to fully review it yet, so I might change my opinion again.
