From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41439) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e47FX-000407-Io for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 11:24:16 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e47FW-0000ug-9u for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 11:24:15 -0400 Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 17:24:04 +0200 From: Kevin Wolf Message-ID: <20171016152404.GD5145@localhost.localdomain> References: <20171013113708.2dd02a17.cohuck@redhat.com> <20171013094400.GD20515@redhat.com> <20171016132246.GC5145@localhost.localdomain> <20171016133812.GB11975@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171016133812.GB11975@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] German BSI analysed security of KVM / QEMU List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Daniel P. Berrange" Cc: Stefan Weil , Cornelia Huck , QEMU Developer , qemu-block@nongnu.org Am 16.10.2017 um 15:38 hat Daniel P. Berrange geschrieben: > > Another thing that made me a bit sad is that they mention qed as a > > better performing alternative for qcow2. Even in 2017, people keep > > spreading this nonsense. :-( > > Probably because when you google for QED you inevitably hit this article > near the top: > > https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=OTY0MQ > > And there's little clear information on QEMU website to show that QED > is essentially an obsolete experiment. > > Perhaps some clear update to this page would help, and also in the > qemu docs > > https://wiki.qemu.org/Features/QED I updated the wiki page, maybe this will help a bit. We could also consider printing a warning when you create a new image in an obsolete native qemu format (i.e. qcow1 and qed). Kevin