From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IJtdn-0008Ep-3f for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 11 Aug 2007 12:16:39 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IJtdk-0008EA-Oh for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 11 Aug 2007 12:16:37 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IJtdk-0008E7-Ic for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 11 Aug 2007 12:16:36 -0400 Received: from mu-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.134.190]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IJtdk-0003ZN-Cd for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 11 Aug 2007 12:16:36 -0400 Received: by mu-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id w8so1350132mue for ; Sat, 11 Aug 2007 09:16:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 18:16:33 +0200 From: "andrzej zaborowski" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] RFE- snapshot data storage location configurable In-Reply-To: <46AFE651.8080306@filteredperception.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <46AFE651.8080306@filteredperception.org> 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 On 01/08/07, dmc wrote: > I have a pretty ugly patch against qemu 0.8 which allows the location of data > used with the -snapshot feature to be somewhere other than /var/tmp. I have a > use-case where I am creating many gigabytes of changes to disk in snapshot mode. > When 0.9 came out, I looked, but it seemed less than trivial to update my > patch, which was a pretty ugly hack to begin with. > > I don't suppose anybody else thinks this would be a useful feature? Or at least > someone who can rattle off the top of their heads the sorts of things I should > keep in mind while trying to put it together myself? > > A further extension, which I would like, but is also more complex to add, would > be the ability to specify -snapshot, _per device_. I also thought that would be useful earlier but now qcow2 overlays provide much better flexibility and don't litter the commandline syntax. I think the currently available choice between -snapshot (for the simplest possible use case) and qcow2 overlays (for anything more complex) is a perfect balance for usability and there's no need to add more switches. Regards, Andrzej (away until mid-September(?))