12.07.2010 09:24, Giangiacomo Mariotti wrote:
> Hi, is it a known problem how much slow is Btrfs with kvm/qemu(meaning
> that the image kvm/qemu uses as the hd is on a partition formatted
> with Btrfs, not that the fs used by the hd inside the kvm environment
> is Btrfs, in fact inside kvm the / pa
On 07/12/2010 12:09 AM, Michael Tokarev wrote:
12.07.2010 09:24, Giangiacomo Mariotti wrote:
Hi, is it a known problem how much slow is Btrfs with kvm/qemu(meaning
that the image kvm/qemu uses as the hd is on a partition formatted
with Btrfs, not that the fs used by the hd inside the kvm environ
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Justin P. Mattock
wrote:
> On 07/12/2010 12:09 AM, Michael Tokarev wrote:
>>
>> This looks quite similar to a problem with ext4 and O_SYNC which I
>> reported earlier but no one cared to answer (or read?) - there:
>> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.file-syst
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Michael Tokarev wrote:
>
> This looks quite similar to a problem with ext4 and O_SYNC which I
> reported earlier but no one cared to answer (or read?) - there:
> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.file-systems/42758
> (sent to qemu-devel and linux-fsdevel lists
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 03:34:44PM +0200, Giangiacomo Mariotti wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> >
> > This looks quite similar to a problem with ext4 and O_SYNC which I
> > reported earlier but no one cared to answer (or read?) - there:
> > http://permalink.gmane.
Giangiacomo Mariotti wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Michael Tokarev wrote:
>> This looks quite similar to a problem with ext4 and O_SYNC which I
>> reported earlier but no one cared to answer (or read?) - there:
>> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.file-systems/42758
>> (sent to qe
Josef Bacik wrote:
[]
> O_DIRECT support was just introduced recently, please try on the latest kernel
> with the normal settings (which IIRC uses O_DIRECT), that should make things
> suck alot less. Thanks,
Um. Do you mean it were introduced in BTRFS or general? :)
Because, wel, O_DIRECT is he
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 05:42:04PM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> Josef Bacik wrote:
> []
> > O_DIRECT support was just introduced recently, please try on the latest
> > kernel
> > with the normal settings (which IIRC uses O_DIRECT), that should make things
> > suck alot less. Thanks,
>
> Um.
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
>
> O_DIRECT support was just introduced recently, please try on the latest kernel
> with the normal settings (which IIRC uses O_DIRECT), that should make things
> suck alot less. Thanks,
>
> Josef
>
With latest kernel do you mean the current Li
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 10:23:14PM +0200, Giangiacomo Mariotti wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> >
> > O_DIRECT support was just introduced recently, please try on the latest
> > kernel
> > with the normal settings (which IIRC uses O_DIRECT), that should make things
>
Am 12.07.2010 15:43, schrieb Josef Bacik:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 03:34:44PM +0200, Giangiacomo Mariotti wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Michael Tokarev wrote:
>>>
>>> This looks quite similar to a problem with ext4 and O_SYNC which I
>>> reported earlier but no one cared to answer (o
11 matches
Mail list logo
