From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IQPO0-0000PP-If for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 11:23:16 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IQPNx-0000Lu-Rv for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 11:23:16 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IQPNx-0000LX-BL for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 11:23:13 -0400 Received: from ns.suse.de ([195.135.220.2] helo=mx1.suse.de) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IQPNw-0000IE-PB for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 11:23:13 -0400 Received: from Relay2.suse.de (mail2.suse.de [195.135.221.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAD03122BD for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:23:09 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <46D58F85.60104@suse.de> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:23:49 +0200 From: Alexander Graf MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [et-mgmt-tools] Image Corruption Possible with qemu and qemu-kvm References: <46D2EC13.8020005@bppiac.hu> <1188232650.25884.100.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20070827202748.GK9043@redhat.com> <1188248558.21696.1.camel@squirrel> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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 Paul Jakma wrote: > On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> I think this is the right level myself. Advisory locks work okay but >> not all filesystems support them. It's particularly nasty when you have >> a clustered filesystem in the host. I think it would do more harm than >> good to have a feature like that was supposed to provide a safe-guard >> but then frequently didn't work. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Are you trying to say that any kind of significant portion of QEMU > users have clustered file-systems? > > I think that's unlikely, and it'd be nice if QEMU by default did a > fcntl() on writeable image files to lock itself from multiple access, > that'd benefit the vast majority of users. > > Let the 0.x% of users who need to run with weird/esoteric fses cope.. > > regards, I'm usually running one "main" qemu instance that has read/write access to the disk file and several others for tests that use the -snapshot option, so I think it's very important to have an easy means of switching this check off. just my 2 cents, Alexander Graf