From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Subject: Re: kvm-83 write performance raw
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 15:22:13 -0600
Message-ID: <49AC4E05.4030805@codemonkey.ws>
References: <aa2a0fc0903021211p4651b0bek4fe055b97033216b@mail.gmail.com>	 <49AC42F4.3030101@codemonkey.ws>	 <aa2a0fc0903021237v3458f86dx3086049733e4e1ba@mail.gmail.com> <aa2a0fc0903021239uc8d5a54haafb30fc71130b8e@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Mailing Lists <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
To: AelMalinka@gmail.com
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from qw-out-2122.google.com ([74.125.92.27]:57901 "EHLO
	qw-out-2122.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753046AbZCBVWS (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 2 Mar 2009 16:22:18 -0500
Received: by qw-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 5so3854834qwi.37
        for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Mon, 02 Mar 2009 13:22:15 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <aa2a0fc0903021239uc8d5a54haafb30fc71130b8e@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

Malinka Rellikwodahs wrote:
>>>
>>> What version of kvm is this?  Is it kvm-68?  You'll have better luck with
>>> something newer than that.
>>>       
>
> kvm-83 is the one with the problem, kvm-68 is working correctly.
>   

kvm-68 and qcow2 both use cache=writeback by default which is less safe 
than cache=writethrough which is now the default.

But performance shouldn't be as bad as your seeing.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori