From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=43549 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PsGqF-0001nT-Go for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 23 Feb 2011 10:41:29 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PsGqA-0002wN-34 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 23 Feb 2011 10:41:23 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:44546) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PsGq9-0002w8-NZ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 23 Feb 2011 10:41:22 -0500 Message-ID: <4D6529A9.3090509@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 17:37:13 +0200 From: Avi Kivity MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: Strategic decision: COW format References: <4D5BC467.4070804@redhat.com> <4D5E4271.80501@redhat.com> <4D5E8031.5020402@codemonkey.ws> <4D637A20.9020307@redhat.com> <4D650F10.3060900@redhat.com> <4D651858.9040106@codemonkey.ws> <4D652675.1070908@redhat.com> <4D652868.8030908@codemonkey.ws> In-Reply-To: <4D652868.8030908@codemonkey.ws> 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: Anthony Liguori Cc: Kevin Wolf , Chunqiang Tang , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Stefan Hajnoczi , Markus Armbruster On 02/23/2011 05:31 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> >>> what about snapshots? Are we okay having a feature in a prominent >>> format that isn't going to meet user's expectations? >>> >>> Is there any hope that an image with 1000, 1000, or 10000 snapshots >>> is going to have even reasonable performance in qcow2? >>> >> >> Are thousands of snapshots for a single image a reasonable user >> expectation? What's the use case? > > > Checkpointing. It was the original use-case that led to qcow2 being > invented. I still don't see. What would you do with thousands of checkpoints? -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function