Re: VM nocow, should VM software set +C by default?

2014-02-25 Thread Justin Ossevoort
I think in principle: No. It is something that should be documented as advise in the VM software documentation. But things like storage management is the domain of the distribution or systems administrator. There might be a situation where the VM software can directly use a btrfs filesystem

Re: VM nocow, should VM software set +C by default?

2014-02-25 Thread Chris Murphy
On Feb 25, 2014, at 2:16 AM, Justin Ossevoort jus...@internetionals.nl wrote: I think in principle: No. It is something that should be documented as advise in the VM software documentation. But things like storage management is the domain of the distribution or systems administrator.

Re: VM nocow, should VM software set +C by default?

2014-02-25 Thread Jim Salter
Put me in on Team Justin on this particular issue. I get and grant that in some use cases you might get pathological behavior out of DB or VM binaries which aren't set NODATACOW, but in my own use - including several near-terabyte-size VM images being used by ten+ people all day long for

Re: VM nocow, should VM software set +C by default?

2014-02-25 Thread Roman Mamedov
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:44:36 -0700 Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote: the VM managing application needs to set +C on image files It's a slippery slope, why not instigate that every program from now on has to set +C on its user files? Or where do we stop, probably the browser should

Re: VM nocow, should VM software set +C by default?

2014-02-25 Thread Chris Murphy
On Feb 25, 2014, at 10:53 AM, Jim Salter j...@jrs-s.net wrote: IME, IMO, the potential performance problems with COW and db/vm do /exist/ but they're way, WAY overstated, and unlikely to rear their heads at all in the majority of use-cases. Right. Unfortunately I'm only aware of such

Re: VM nocow, should VM software set +C by default?

2014-02-25 Thread Duncan
Chris Murphy posted on Tue, 25 Feb 2014 11:33:34 -0700 as excerpted: I've had a qcow2 image with more than 30,000 extents and didn't notice a performance drop. So I don't know that number of extents is the problem. Maybe it's how they're arranged on disk and what's causing the problem is

VM nocow, should VM software set +C by default?

2014-02-21 Thread Chris Murphy
Use case is a user who doesn't know that today xattr +C ought to be set on vm images when on Btrfs. They use e.g. Gnome Boxes, or Virtual Machine Manager (virt-manager) to configure pools, images, and VMs. If libvirt were to set +C on any containing directory configured as a pool, then any

Re: VM nocow, should VM software set +C by default?

2014-02-21 Thread Duncan
Chris Murphy posted on Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:55:50 -0700 as excerpted: Use case is a user who doesn't know that today xattr +C ought to be set on vm images when on Btrfs. They use e.g. Gnome Boxes, or Virtual Machine Manager (virt-manager) to configure pools, images, and VMs. If libvirt were