From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49414) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YWLXp-0004dV-Ix for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 05:06:14 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YWLXm-0001Lf-DY for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 05:06:13 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:58611) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YWLXm-0001LX-4Z for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 05:06:10 -0400 Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 17:05:56 +0800 From: Fam Zheng Message-ID: <20150313090556.GD3527@ad.nay.redhat.com> References: <20150212084435.GD32554@ad.nay.redhat.com> <54DC7376.9060300@cn.fujitsu.com> <20150212094432.GA21253@ad.nay.redhat.com> <54DC7C39.40101@cn.fujitsu.com> <20150212102622.GA24218@ad.nay.redhat.com> <54F5685F.1040207@cn.fujitsu.com> <20150303075947.GA29800@ad.nay.redhat.com> <54FFE438.1020503@cn.fujitsu.com> <20150311064952.GG1437@ad.nay.redhat.com> <5502A76A.8070909@cn.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5502A76A.8070909@cn.fujitsu.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH 01/14] docs: block replication's description List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Wen Congyang Cc: Kevin Wolf , Lai Jiangshan , Jiang Yunhong , Dong Eddie , qemu devel , "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" , Gonglei , Stefan Hajnoczi , Paolo Bonzini , Yang Hongyang , jsnow@redhat.com, zhanghailiang On Fri, 03/13 17:01, Wen Congyang wrote: > On 03/11/2015 02:49 PM, Fam Zheng wrote: > > On Wed, 03/11 14:44, Wen Congyang wrote: > >> On 03/03/2015 03:59 PM, Fam Zheng wrote: > >>> On Tue, 03/03 15:53, Wen Congyang wrote: > >>>> I test qcow2_make_empty()'s performance. The result shows that it may > >>>> take about 100ms(normal sata disk). It is not acceptable for COLO. So > >>>> I think disk buff is necessary(just use it to replace qcow2). > >>> > >>> Why not tmpfs or ramdisk? > >> > >> Another problem: > >> After failover, secondary write request will be written in (active disk)? > >> It is better to write request to (nbd target). Is there any feature can > >> be reused to implement it? > > > > You can use block commit or stream to move the data. > > Can the job stream move the data? I don't find the write ops in block/stream.c. It is bdrv_co_copy_on_readv that moves data. Fam