[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100830001441.GA838@dhcp231-156.rdu.redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 20:14:41 -0400
From: Josef Bacik <josef@...hat.com>
To: Tomasz Chmielewski <mangoo@...g.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
hch@...radead.org, gg.mariotti@...il.com,
"Justin P. Mattock" <justinmattock@...il.com>, mjt@....msk.ru,
josef@...hat.com, tytso@....edu
Subject: Re: BTRFS: Unbelievably slow with kvm/qemu
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 09:34:29PM +0200, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
> Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
>> There are a lot of variables when using qemu.
>>
>> The most important one are:
>>
>> - the cache mode on the device. The default is cache=writethrough,
>> which is not quite optimal. You generally do want to use cache=none
>> which uses O_DIRECT in qemu.
>> - if the backing image is sparse or not.
>> - if you use barrier - both in the host and the guest.
>
> I noticed that when btrfs is mounted with default options, when writing
> i.e. 10 GB on the KVM guest using qcow2 image, 20 GB are written on the
> host (as measured with "iostat -m -p").
>
>
> With ext4 (or btrfs mounted with nodatacow), 10 GB write on a guest
> produces 10 GB write on the host.
>
Whoa 20gb? That doesn't sound right, COW should just mean we get quite a bit of
fragmentation, not write everything twice. What exactly is qemu doing? Thanks,
Josef
--
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