On 08.09.2010, at 10:23, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 09/08/2010 01:27 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >>> FWIW, L2s are 256K at the moment and with a two level table, it can support >>> 5PB of data. >> >> >> I clearly suck at basic math today. The image supports 64TB today. >> Dropping to 128K tables would reduce it to 16TB and 64k tables would be 4TB. > > Maybe we should do three levels then. Some users are bound to complain about > 64TB.
Why 3 levels? Can't the L2 size be dynamic? Then big images get a big L2 map while small images get a smaller one. Alex
