* Daniel P. Berrangé (berra...@redhat.com) wrote: > On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 03:31:35PM +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > > > Not in this case because it'd still be a flat qcow2 file in a simple tar > > > archive. > > > > > > But you're right if we had a more complex format (like chunks stored in > > > a tar file). > > > > My only problem with using the tar like that is that all tools > > everywhere would need to be updated to be able to parse them. > > I feel it is the opposite actually. By adding named blobs or custom > strings to qcow2, we've effectively invented a new type of archive > format, except apps cant use the normal unzip/tar tools/apis they > already have. Instead they need to use qemu-img to read,add,remove > blobs from qcow2. It is very compelling to use an existing archive > format like tar/zip because every language has APIs for dealing > with them and apps probably already do this for things like OVA.
My thinking was that a qcow2 with this extra data would still work in all our existing systems. Dave > Regards, > Daniel > -- > |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| > |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| > |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
