On 02/23/2011 09:23 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 02/23/2011 04:23 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 02/23/2011 07:43 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 02/22/2011 10:56 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
*sigh*
It starts to get annoying, but if you really insist, I can repeat it
once more: These features that you don't need (this is the correct
description for what you call "misfeatures") _are_ implemented in a
way
that they don't impact the "normal" case. And they are it today.
Plus, encryption and snapshots can be implemented in a way that
doesn't impact performance more than is reasonable.
We're still missing the existence proof of this, but even assuming it
existed,
dm-crypt isn't any more complicated, and it's used by default in most
distributions these days.
what about snapshots? Are we okay having a feature in a prominent
format that isn't going to meet user's expectations?
Is there any hope that an image with 1000, 1000, or 10000 snapshots
is going to have even reasonable performance in qcow2?
Are thousands of snapshots for a single image a reasonable user
expectation? What's the use case?
Checkpointing. It was the original use-case that led to qcow2 being
invented.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
