On 05/20/2010 08:49 AM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
On 05/20/10 15:40, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 05/20/2010 08:36 AM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
And I strongly suspect that such a blanket change would be wrong but
that a more targeted change like making cache=none default for physical
devices would
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> On 05/20/10 15:40, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> On 05/20/2010 08:36 AM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
And I strongly suspect that such a blanket change would be wrong but
that a more targeted change like making cache=none default for physical
>>>
On 05/20/10 15:40, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 05/20/2010 08:36 AM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
>>> And I strongly suspect that such a blanket change would be wrong but
>>> that a more targeted change like making cache=none default for physical
>>> devices would satisfy mostly everyone.
>>>
>> Is the
On 05/20/2010 08:36 AM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
On 05/20/10 14:30, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 05/20/2010 04:32 AM, jes.soren...@redhat.com wrote:
Therefore, here is a patch that does two things:
- default to "nocache"
- in case of failure with nocache, retry with "write-back"
On 05/20/10 14:30, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 05/20/2010 04:32 AM, jes.soren...@redhat.com wrote:
>> Therefore, here is a patch that does two things:
>> - default to "nocache"
>> - in case of failure with nocache, retry with "write-back"
>>
>
> This sort of change requires performance dat
On 05/20/2010 04:32 AM, jes.soren...@redhat.com wrote:
From: Jes Sorensen
We seem to get into the discussion of what is the correct default
setting disk images in QEMU. The libvirt team is reluctant to change
specified for newly created images without the default setting
matching it, and everybo
From: Jes Sorensen
We seem to get into the discussion of what is the correct default
setting disk images in QEMU. The libvirt team is reluctant to change
specified for newly created images without the default setting
matching it, and everybody seems to agree that the current setting of
WT is the
