From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.24]:63602 "EHLO mout.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751604AbbIQVdB (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Sep 2015 17:33:01 -0400 Subject: Re: BTRFS as image store for KVM? References: <55F88ECC.1040604@menke.ac> <55FAFEB8.6030404@menke.ac> From: Gert Menke Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org To: Chris Murphy Message-ID: <55FB3188.2060909@menke.ac> Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 23:32:56 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 17.09.2015 at 20:35, Chris Murphy wrote: > You can use Btrfs in the guest to get at least notification of SDC. Yes, but I'd rather not depend on all potential guest OSes having btrfs or something similar. > Another way is to put a conventional fs image on e.g. GlusterFS with > checksumming enabled (and at least distributed+replicated filtering). This sounds interesting! I'll have a look at this. > If you do this directly on Btrfs, maybe you can mitigate some of the > fragmentation issues with bcache or dmcache; Thanks, I did not know about these. bcache seems to be more or less what "zpool add foo cache /dev/ssd" does. Definitely worth a look. > and for persistent snapshotting, use qcow2 to do it instead of Btrfs. You'd use Btrfs > snapshots to create a subvolume for doing backups of the images, and > then get rid of the Btrfs snapshot. Good idea. Thanks!