From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=39819 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PfbnB-0005Gv-OW
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 19 Jan 2011 12:25:58 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <hch@lst.de>) id 1PfbnA-0006Ut-MG
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 19 Jan 2011 12:25:57 -0500
Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.210]:54741)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <hch@lst.de>)
	id 1PfbnA-0006UN-AE
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 19 Jan 2011 12:25:56 -0500
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 18:25:53 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Propose the Fast Virtual Disk (FVD) image
	format that outperforms QCOW2 by 249%
Message-ID: <20110119172553.GA10651@lst.de>
References: <OF3E93472E.55406C42-ON8525780E.0076E5DB-8525780E.00775B7C@us.ibm.com>
	<4D24AA6E.3060507@codemonkey.ws>
	<OF8A78A7CA.8AA950FC-ON85257818.0072949C-85257818.0072E29A@us.ibm.com>
	<20110119155116.GA7394@lst.de>
	<OF7ACF6E92.45243DC5-ON8525781D.0058D459-8525781D.0059B38F@us.ibm.com>
	<20110119164248.GA9033@lst.de>
	<OFD5AB2B2C.2203DC01-ON8525781D.005C32BF-8525781D.005E0E68@us.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <OFD5AB2B2C.2203DC01-ON8525781D.005C32BF-8525781D.005E0E68@us.ibm.com>
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Chunqiang Tang <ctang@us.ibm.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:08:41PM -0500, Chunqiang Tang wrote:
> These  numbers are very interesting and I would like to read more. Are 
> your detailed results accessible on the Internet? Do you  have numbers on 
> the impact of using a large extent size (64-256MB) on thin provisioning 
> (since a guest file system's metadata are written first and are scattered 
> in the virtual disk)? 

It's still work in progress.  I will publish patches and numbers in a
few weeks.