From: "Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>
To: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
Cc: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>,
berto@igalia.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-block@nongnu.org,
mreitz@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v7 3/6] qcow2: Reduce REFT_OFFSET_MASK
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 16:43:00 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180629154300.GX27016@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <41be61a0-9048-c08f-1a9a-1c213f5103ef@redhat.com>
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 10:22:22AM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 06/29/2018 03:44 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > Am 28.06.2018 um 21:07 hat Eric Blake geschrieben:
> > > Match our code to the spec change in the previous patch - there's
> > > no reason for the refcount table to allow larger offsets than the
> > > L1/L2 tables.
> >
> > What about internal snapshots? And anyway, because of the metadata
> > overhead, the physical image size of a fully allocated image is always
> > going to be at least minimally larger than the virtual disk size.
> >
> > I'm not necessarily opposed to making the change if there is a good
> > reason to make it, but I don't see a real need for it and the
> > justification used here and also in the previous patch is incorrect.
>
> The fact that ext4 cannot hold an image this large is already an indication
> that setting this limit on the refcount table is NOT going to bite real
> users.
NB, RHEL-7 defaults to xfs and this supports file sizes way larger
than ext4 does, so not sure we should consider ext4 as representative
of real world limits anymore.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-06-29 15:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-06-28 19:07 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v7 0/6] minor qcow2 compression improvements Eric Blake
2018-06-28 19:07 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v7 1/6] qcow2: Prefer byte-based calls into bs->file Eric Blake
2018-06-28 19:07 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v7 2/6] qcow2: Document some maximum size constraints Eric Blake
2018-06-28 19:07 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v7 3/6] qcow2: Reduce REFT_OFFSET_MASK Eric Blake
2018-06-29 8:44 ` Kevin Wolf
2018-06-29 15:22 ` Eric Blake
2018-06-29 15:43 ` Daniel P. Berrangé [this message]
2018-06-29 15:43 ` Kevin Wolf
2018-09-14 18:47 ` Eric Blake
2018-06-28 19:07 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v7 4/6] qcow2: Don't allow overflow during cluster allocation Eric Blake
2018-06-28 19:07 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v7 5/6] iotests: Add new test 220 for max compressed cluster offset Eric Blake
2018-06-28 19:07 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v7 6/6] qcow2: Avoid memory over-allocation on compressed images Eric Blake
2018-06-29 9:03 ` Kevin Wolf
2018-06-29 15:16 ` Eric Blake
2018-06-29 15:47 ` Kevin Wolf
2018-06-29 16:48 ` [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-block] " Kevin Wolf
2018-11-13 22:38 ` [Qemu-devel] " Eric Blake
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180629154300.GX27016@redhat.com \
--to=berrange@redhat.com \
--cc=berto@igalia.com \
--cc=eblake@redhat.com \
--cc=kwolf@redhat.com \
--cc=mreitz@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-block@nongnu.org \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).