From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Mueller Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] Use writeback caching by default with qcow2 Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 07:04:31 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <49247615.6050105@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org To: kvm@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2]:56337 "EHLO ciao.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751043AbYKTHEt (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Nov 2008 02:04:49 -0500 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1L33ah-0004nY-LI for kvm@vger.kernel.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 07:04:39 +0000 Received: from 77-58-232-244.dclient.hispeed.ch ([77.58.232.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 07:04:39 +0000 Received: from thomas by 77-58-232-244.dclient.hispeed.ch with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 07:04:39 +0000 Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:24:53 -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote: > Right now, qcow2 isn't a > reliable format regardless of the type of cache your using because > metadata is not updated in the correct order. so you don't advise to use qcow2 as a VBD or what do you mean with "isn't reliable"? or contrawise: on the other formats the metadata is updated in the correct order?