From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tomasz Chmielewski Subject: Re: Live memory allocation? Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:15:25 +0200 Message-ID: <49D0E20D.2010505@wpkg.org> References: <49CB86BE.40505@poboxes.info> <49CB8B59.20601@redhat.com> <49CB8CF6.70403@wpkg.org> <200903280738.34169.alberto@byu.edu> <49CF6AA4.2060108@redhat.com> <49D0CBCA.3000808@wpkg.org> <49D0CDB4.1010706@redhat.com> <49D0CF58.40109@wpkg.org> <49D0DE26.8040009@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Nolan , kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Avi Kivity Return-path: Received: from mx03.syneticon.net ([78.111.66.105]:56084 "EHLO mx03.syneticon.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751327AbZC3PPb (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Mar 2009 11:15:31 -0400 In-Reply-To: <49D0DE26.8040009@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Avi Kivity schrieb: > Tomasz Chmielewski wrote: >>> >>> Double caching is indeed a bad idea. That's why you have cache=off >>> (though it isn't recommended with qcow2). >> >> cache= option is about write cache, right? >> >> Here, I'm talking about read cache. >> >> Or, does "cache=none" disable read cache as well? > > cache=writethrough disables the write cache > cache=none disables host caching completely Still, if there is free memory on host, why not use it for cache? -- Tomasz Chmielewski http://wpkg.org