On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 02:32:01PM +0100, Claudio Fontana wrote: > Hello Daniel and all, > > resurrecting this series from end of last year, > > do we think that this is the right approach and first step to > be able to provide good performance for virsh save and virsh > restore?
I've looked through the series in some more detail now and will send review comments separately. Overall, I'm pretty pleased with the series and think it is on the right path. The new format it provides should be amenable to parallel I/O with multifd and be able to support O_DIRECT to avoid burning through the host I/O cache. There is obviously a bit of extra complexity from having a new way to map RAM to the output, but it looks fairly well contained in just a couple of places of the code. The performance wins should be able to justify the extra maint burden IMHO. > Do we still agree on this way forward, any comments? Thanks, I'm not a migration maintainer, but overall I think it is good. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
