From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53251)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <wency@cn.fujitsu.com>) id 1YVam9-0004TA-30
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 03:09:53 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <wency@cn.fujitsu.com>) id 1YVam5-0002So-0n
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 03:09:53 -0400
Received: from [59.151.112.132] (port=40913 helo=heian.cn.fujitsu.com)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <wency@cn.fujitsu.com>) id 1YVam4-0002Se-Ba
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 03:09:48 -0400
Message-ID: <54FFEAE6.3080104@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 15:12:38 +0800
From: Wen Congyang <wency@cn.fujitsu.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20150212084435.GD32554@ad.nay.redhat.com>
	<54DC7376.9060300@cn.fujitsu.com>
	<20150212094432.GA21253@ad.nay.redhat.com>
	<54DC7C39.40101@cn.fujitsu.com>
	<20150212102622.GA24218@ad.nay.redhat.com>
	<54F5685F.1040207@cn.fujitsu.com>
	<20150303075947.GA29800@ad.nay.redhat.com>
	<54FFE438.1020503@cn.fujitsu.com>
	<20150311064952.GG1437@ad.nay.redhat.com>
	<54FFE82D.9010306@cn.fujitsu.com>
	<20150311070454.GH1437@ad.nay.redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150311070454.GH1437@ad.nay.redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH 01/14] docs: block replication's
	description
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Fam Zheng <famz@redhat.com>
Cc: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>, Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>, Jiang Yunhong <yunhong.jiang@intel.com>, Dong Eddie <eddie.dong@intel.com>, qemu devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, "Dr.
	David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>, Gonglei <arei.gonglei@huawei.com>, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, Yang Hongyang <yanghy@cn.fujitsu.com>, jsnow@redhat.com, zhanghailiang <zhang.zhanghailiang@huawei.com>

On 03/11/2015 03:04 PM, Fam Zheng wrote:
> On Wed, 03/11 15:01, Wen Congyang wrote:
>> On 03/11/2015 02:49 PM, Fam Zheng wrote:
>>> On Wed, 03/11 14:44, Wen Congyang wrote:
>>>> On 03/03/2015 03:59 PM, Fam Zheng wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 03/03 15:53, Wen Congyang wrote:
>>>>>> I test qcow2_make_empty()'s performance. The result shows that it may
>>>>>> take about 100ms(normal sata disk). It is not acceptable for COLO. So
>>>>>> I think disk buff is necessary(just use it to replace qcow2).
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not tmpfs or ramdisk?
>>>>
>>>> Another problem:
>>>> After failover, secondary write request will be written in (active disk)?
>>>> It is better to write request to (nbd target). Is there any feature can
>>>> be reused to implement it?
>>>
>>> You can use block commit or stream to move the data.
>>
>> When doing failover, we can use it to move the data. After failover,
>> I need an endless job to move the data.
>>
> 
> I see what you mean. After failover, does the nbd server receive more data
> (i.e. do you need a buffer to stash data from the other side)? If you commit
> (active disk) to (nbd target), all the writes will go to a single image.

After failover(primary host downs), only secondary qemu works, and nbd server
doesn't receive any more data.

Thanks
Wen Congyang

> 
> Fam
> 
> .
>