From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Neobiker Subject: Which disk backend to use in domU? Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 10:06:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <28857720.post@talk.nabble.com> References: <1382341628.4833695.1276117331660.JavaMail.root@vms170009.mailsrvcs.net> <1742609046.4840453.1276126053830.JavaMail.root@vms170009.mailsrvcs.net> <4C1025C0.2070808@goop.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4C1025C0.2070808@goop.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Hello Jeremy, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > Using phy: in your config file? That really isn't recommended because it > has poor integrity; the writes are buffered in dom0 so writes can be > reordered or lost on crash, and the guest filesystem can't maintain any > of its own integrity guarantees. > > tap:aio: is more resilient, since the writes go directly to the device > without buffering. Do you mean that using tap:aio with a disk.image is prefered against using phy: with LVM-device? Best Regards Jens Friedrich aka Neobiker (www.neobiker.de) -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Xen-pv_ops-dom0-2.6.32.13-issues-tp28835895p28857720.html Sent from the Xen - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.