Aurelien Jarno <aurel...@aurel32.net> writes: [...] > I agree that the best would be to have a single format, and it's > probably a goal to have. That said, what is most important to my view is > having one or two formats which together have _all_ the features (and > here I consider speed as a feature) of the existing qcow2 format. QED or > FVD have been designed with the "virtualization in a datacenter" in mind, > and are very good for this use. OTOH they don't support compression or > snapshotting, that are quite useful for demo, debugging, testing, or > even for occasionally running a Windows VM, in other words in situations > where the speed is not the priority.
Speed not a priority means the requirements are pretty radically different. Satisfying two radically different sets of requirements with the same format could be difficult. Great to have, but possibly difficult. > If we can't find a tradeoff for that, we should go for two instead of > one image format. Less bad than a jack-of-all-trades.
