| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <AANLkTim7A9teJtk5c1jh2g6mDv07HAi72d5S6WveL8Gp@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 15:34:44 +0200 From: Giangiacomo Mariotti <gg.mariotti@...il.com> To: Michael Tokarev <mjt@....msk.ru> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, qemu-devel <qemu-devel@...gnu.org> Subject: Re: BTRFS: Unbelievably slow with kvm/qemu On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Michael Tokarev <mjt@....msk.ru> 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 - Cc'd too). You can > try a few other options, esp. cache=none and re-writing some guest > files to verify. > > /mjt > Either way, changing to cache=none I suspect wouldn't tell me much, because if it's as slow as before, it's still unusable and if instead it's even slower, well it'd be even more unusable, so I wouldn't be able to tell the difference. What I can say for certain is that with the exact same virtual hd file, same options, same system, but on an ext3 fs there's no problem at all, on a Btrfs is not just slower, it takes ages. -- Giangiacomo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists