From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Valtteri Kiviniemi Subject: Re: Which disk backend to use in domU? Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 20:53:30 +0300 Message-ID: <4C12781A.7060603@dataproof.fi> References: <1382341628.4833695.1276117331660.JavaMail.root@vms170009.mailsrvcs.net> <1742609046.4840453.1276126053830.JavaMail.root@vms170009.mailsrvcs.net> <4C1025C0.2070808@goop.org> <28857720.post@talk.nabble.com> <4C127584.6070801@dataproof.fi> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4C127584.6070801@dataproof.fi> 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 Hi, Ah, misunderstanding sorry, you were talking about disk images :) Valtteri Kiviniemi kirjoitti: > Hi, > > I am also using phy: with LVM-partitions, and I also would like to know > if there is a better or more preferred way. > > - Valtteri Kiviniemi > > Neobiker kirjoitti: >> 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) > > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel