From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1N1NaG-0005sU-Eo
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:05:48 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1N1NaF-0005rJ-7y
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:05:47 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=38741 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1N1NaF-0005r8-4M
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:05:47 -0400
Received: from mx03.syneticon.net ([78.111.66.105]:51168)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <mangoo@wpkg.org>) id 1N1NaD-00085n-0z
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:05:45 -0400
Message-ID: <4AE1E25C.9010404@wpkg.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:05:32 +0200
From: Tomasz Chmielewski <mangoo@wpkg.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [ANNOUNCE] Sheepdog: Distributed Storage System
	for KVM
References: <4ADE988B.2070303@lab.ntt.co.jp> <4AE07A7F.8000002@redhat.com>
	<8fd1d76d0910230341w7978ac09te203ef34b79a86c6@mail.gmail.com>
	<90eb1dc70910230714h65e918a4n255bcf97634b26b0@mail.gmail.com>
	<20091023145815.GE18955@arachsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <20091023145815.GE18955@arachsys.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Chris Webb <chris@arachsys.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, Javier Guerra <javier@guerrag.com>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, MORITA Kazutaka <morita.kazutaka@lab.ntt.co.jp>

Chris Webb wrote:
> Javier Guerra <javier@guerrag.com> writes:
> 
>> i'd just want to add my '+1 votes' on both getting rid of JVM
>> dependency and using block devices (usually LVM) instead of ext3/btrfs
> 
> If the chunks into which the virtual drives are split are quite small (say
> the 64MB used by Hadoop), LVM may be a less appropriate choice. It doesn't
> support very large numbers of very small logical volumes very well.

Also, on _loaded_ systems, I noticed creating/removing logical volumes 
can take really long (several minutes); where allocating a file of a 
given size would just take a fraction of that.

Sot sure how it would matter here, but probably it would.

-- 
Tomasz Chmielewski
http://wpkg.org