From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48554) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y8six-00013n-A1 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 07 Jan 2015 10:40:44 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y8sit-0003jj-7V for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 07 Jan 2015 10:40:43 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:48298) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y8sis-0003jL-Vp for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 07 Jan 2015 10:40:39 -0500 Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 10:40:32 -0500 From: Jeff Cody Message-ID: <20150107154032.GA9755@localhost.localdomain> References: <20141204133138.26031.92640.malonedeb@wampee.canonical.com> <20141204133138.26031.92640.malonedeb@wampee.canonical.com> <20150107153028.GF22440@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150107153028.GF22440@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Bug 1399191] [NEW] Large VHDX image size List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Stefan Hajnoczi Cc: Bug 1399191 <1399191@bugs.launchpad.net>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 03:30:28PM +0000, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 01:31:38PM -0000, AMULYA L wrote: > > Public bug reported: > > > > We are trying to convert a VMDK image to VHDX image for deploy to HyperV Server ( SCVMM 2012 SP1) using qemu-img. > > We tried converting the image using both 'fixed' as well as 'dynamic' format. We found that both the disks occupy the same size of 50GB. When the same is done with VHD image, we found that the dynamic disks are much lesser in size (5 GB) than the fixed disk (50GB). > > > > Why is that the VHDX generates large sized images for both the formats? > > > > The following commands were used to convert the vmdk image to VHDX > > format > > Jeff, did you fix this recently in commit > 85b712c9d5b873562c864e72f69cbf0d87d2fe40 ("block: vhdx - set > .bdrv_has_zero_init to bdrv_has_zero_init_1")? > > Stefan Yes, although there has been a report that there are issues in the resulting vhdx image in a MS server, after this patch. I am going to test and fix (if confirmed) once my MSDN subscription is renewed (in process now, I expect it anytime). Jeff