From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MiSrb-00023N-B1 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 01 Sep 2009 08:53:31 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MiSrW-0001yV-J8 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 01 Sep 2009 08:53:30 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=42960 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MiSrV-0001yI-RF for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 01 Sep 2009 08:53:26 -0400 Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]:19778) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MiSrV-00015X-EF for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 01 Sep 2009 08:53:25 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MiSrU-00058k-AH for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 01 Sep 2009 08:53:24 -0400 Received: from int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n81CrMCt010697 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2009 08:53:22 -0400 Message-ID: <4A9D1940.4040304@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 15:53:20 +0300 From: Avi Kivity MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] qcow2: Order concurrent AIO requests on the same unallocated cluster References: <1251730129-18693-1-git-send-email-kwolf@redhat.com> <4A9CF517.30701@redhat.com> <4A9CFC64.7050603@redhat.com> <4A9D047E.1040208@redhat.com> <20090901112647.GZ30093@redhat.com> <4A9D139A.4050709@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4A9D139A.4050709@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Kevin Wolf Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Gleb Natapov On 09/01/2009 03:29 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Gleb Natapov schrieb: > >>>> No really detailed numbers. Installation time for RHEL on qcow2/virtio >>>> went down from 34 min to 19 min, though. >>>> >>> That's very impressive. cache=none or cache=wt? >>> >>> >> And how it compares with raw? >> > I just ran another installation on raw and it took about 16:30 min. > > And with the next patch series that I'm going to send today we'll be in > the same region with qcow2. > Looks pretty good then. Was that 'raw' as in 'disk partition', or as 'raw file on ext3'? -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function