From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MiFpZ-0001KR-JV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 31 Aug 2009 18:58:33 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MiFpU-0001Ea-S3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 31 Aug 2009 18:58:32 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=45109 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MiFpU-0001ET-JO for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 31 Aug 2009 18:58:28 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.210]:37656) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA1:24) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MiFpT-0002QS-T1 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 31 Aug 2009 18:58:28 -0400 Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 00:58:25 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/4] block: add enable_write_cache flag Message-ID: <20090831225825.GB10220@lst.de> References: <20090831201627.GA4811@lst.de> <20090831201651.GA4874@lst.de> <20090831220950.GB24318@shareable.org> <20090831221622.GA8834@lst.de> <4A9C5463.4090904@codemonkey.ws> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A9C5463.4090904@codemonkey.ws> List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: Christoph Hellwig , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 05:53:23PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > I think we should pity our poor users and avoid adding yet another > obscure option that is likely to be misunderstood. > > Can someone do some benchmarking with cache=writeback and fdatasync > first and quantify what the real performance impact is? I can run benchmarks. Any workloads that you are particularly looking for?