From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1G5fo9-0006bd-Px for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 26 Jul 2006 05:36:01 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1G5fo8-0006bC-2X for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 26 Jul 2006 05:36:01 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G5fo7-0006b9-TT for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 26 Jul 2006 05:35:59 -0400 Received: from [203.190.192.17] (helo=wasp.net.au) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1G5fpd-0005zu-5O for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 26 Jul 2006 05:37:33 -0400 Message-ID: <44C73779.7070104@wasp.net.au> Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 13:35:53 +0400 From: Brad Campbell MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Wipe patch References: <44C72AD0.1090004@wasp.net.au> <44C733B9.9080705@qumranet.com> In-Reply-To: <44C733B9.9080705@qumranet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Avi Kivity wrote: >> This _looks_ like it would severely impact cpu load during a write. >> Have you done any testing to determine if this is likely to impact a >> normal usage scenario? > > Why would it? In most cases, the zero test would terminate quickly, > without accessing the entire cluster. > Good point, when I looked at it my brain was in zero wipe mode.. which would be slow but then a bucketload faster than writing the actual cluster to disk.. Brad -- "Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." -- Douglas Adams