From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FxklP-00030x-HA for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 04 Jul 2006 09:16:27 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FxklN-00030c-5M for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 04 Jul 2006 09:16:26 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FxklN-00030Z-0Y for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 04 Jul 2006 09:16:25 -0400 Received: from [64.233.182.189] (helo=nf-out-0910.google.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1Fxkz3-00053u-6J for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 04 Jul 2006 09:30:33 -0400 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id a4so1024917nfc for ; Tue, 04 Jul 2006 06:16:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <46d6db660607040616s3d853a64k2a1b6cdc6805cf8f@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 15:16:24 +0200 From: "Christian MICHON" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] QCow v2 In-Reply-To: <46d6db660607040603t202c7b62ycc80d2e87d7bd660@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <1151981142.5476.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44AA33AD.3030300@bellard.org> <46d6db660607040344i7bc7e4cbx83fc424a6ebefa8a@mail.gmail.com> <46d6db660607040414m561b7af7h45d50f7a1d6296da@mail.gmail.com> <44AA5057.4090306@bellard.org> <46d6db660607040513t230e37c6h40cd3de3f91a76bd@mail.gmail.com> <44AA5D7E.9020707@bellard.org> <46d6db660607040603t202c7b62ycc80d2e87d7bd660@mail.gmail.com> 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 ok, I used "split -b 4k" on a 7716864 bytes qcow. I used standard lzma compression and get 1884 7z-clusters with a grand total of 3558617 bytes (indeed the gain is small). The standard zlib qcow gave 3704180 bytes... Does it make sense to have a cluster based compression ? Indeed the actual compression is not so impressive then (zlib or not zlib based). On 7/4/06, Christian MICHON wrote: > sorry I was not clear here... > > On 7/4/06, Fabrice Bellard wrote: > > > how to split into individual clusters a qcow image ? > > > > A good approximation is to use an uncompressed qcow image, or even a raw > > image in which you exclude the empty clusters. > > > > Fabrice. > > how do I cut into the actual 4k clusters an existing qcow image ? > any bash script or executable to perform this trick ? > > -- > Christian > -- Christian