From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:58666) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R493z-0004nZ-Et for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 06:21:00 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R493y-0002ID-BT for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 06:20:59 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:51590) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R493y-0002I2-3S for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 06:20:58 -0400 Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 13:20:54 +0300 From: Gleb Natapov Message-ID: <20110915102054.GI21417@redhat.com> References: <4E70DEE8.8090908@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20110915054729.GV21417@redhat.com> <4E71D0FB.6040102@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4E71D0FB.6040102@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Design of the blobstore List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Stefan Berger Cc: Markus Armbruster , Anthony Liguori , QEMU Developers , "Michael S. Tsirkin" On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 06:18:35AM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote: > On 09/15/2011 01:47 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote: > >On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 01:05:44PM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote: > >> One property of the blobstore is that it has a certain required > >>size for accommodating all blobs of device that want to store their > >>blobs onto. The assumption is that the size of these blobs is know > >>a-priori to the writer of the device code and all devices can > >>register their space requirements with the blobstore during device > >>initialization. Then gathering all the registered blobs' sizes plus > >>knowing the overhead of the layout of the data on the disk lets QEMU > >>calculate the total required (minimum) size that the image has to > >>have to accommodate all blobs in a particular blobstore. > >> > >I do not see the point of having one blobstore for all devices. Each > >should have its own. We will need permanent storage for UEFI firmware > >too and creating new UEFI config for each machine configuration is not > >the kind of usability we want to have. > > > You will have the possibility of storing all devices' state into one > blobstore or each devices' state in its own or any combination in > between. > Good, thanks. -- Gleb.