From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Subject: Re: sync guest calls made async on host - SQLite performance
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:02:52 -0500
Message-ID: <4AC259DC.2080807@codemonkey.ws>
References: <4ABC6AA5.6080909@tauceti.net> <4ABF4E95.5070100@redhat.com> <4ABF5596.9050207@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, RW <kvm@tauceti.net>,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org
To: Matthew Tippett <tippettm@gmail.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-bw0-f220.google.com ([209.85.218.220]:44883 "EHLO
	mail-bw0-f220.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753548AbZI2TLH (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:11:07 -0400
Received: by bwz20 with SMTP id 20so4618088bwz.18
        for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:11:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4ABF5596.9050207@gmail.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

Matthew Tippett wrote:
> I have created a launchpad bug against qemu-kvm in Ubuntu.
>
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qemu-kvm/+bug/437473
>
> Just re-iterating, my concern isn't so much performance, but integrity 
> of stock KVM configurations with server or other workloads that expect 
> sync fileIO requests to be honored and synchronous to the underlying 
> physical disk.
>
> (That and ensuring that sanity reigns where a benchmark doesn't show a 
> guest operating 10 times faster than a host for the same test :).

And I've closed it.  In the future, please actually reproduce a bug 
before filing it.  Reading it on a website doesn't mean it's true :-)

Regards,

Anthony Liguori