On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 12:00 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> 3) We have no way to detect when we no longer need a work around which makes
> (2) really unappealing.
I agree.
> 4) That leaves us with:
> a) waiting for NFS to get fixed properly and just living with worse
> performance on older ker
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 04:33:51PM -0700, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
> To be honest with you, we should kill cache=none and just optimize only one
> case and live with it (like other commerical
> hypervisor). :(
cache=none is the only sane mode for qemu, modulo bugs in nfs or similar weird
protocols
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 03:21:36PM -0700, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
> When you say "you're" - you really meant RH right ? RH should have caught
> this in their
> regression year ago as part of their first beta. Correct ?
With you I mean whoever cares. Which apparently is no one but IBM.
On 4/15/2011 4:00 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 04/15/2011 05:21 PM, pbad...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On 4/15/2011 10:29 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 09:23:54AM -0700, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
True. That brings up a different question - whether we are doing
enough testi
On 04/15/2011 05:21 PM, pbad...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On 4/15/2011 10:29 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 09:23:54AM -0700, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
True. That brings up a different question - whether we are doing
enough testing on mainline QEMU :(
It seems you're clearl
On 4/15/2011 10:29 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 09:23:54AM -0700, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
True. That brings up a different question - whether we are doing
enough testing on mainline QEMU :(
It seems you're clearly not doing enough testing on any qemu. Even
the
On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 13:09 -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 04/15/2011 11:23 AM, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
> > On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 17:34 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 04:26:41PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Christoph Hellwig
On 04/15/2011 11:23 AM, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 17:34 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 04:26:41PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
NAK. ?Just wait for the bloody NFS client fix to get in instea
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 09:23:54AM -0700, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
> True. That brings up a different question - whether we are doing
> enough testing on mainline QEMU :(
It seems you're clearly not doing enough testing on any qemu. Even
the RHEL6 qemu has had preadv/pwritev since the first beta.
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 11:10:37AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> In general, since we are userspace, we should try to run well on whatever
> kernel we're on.
It should run with the interfaces given, but hacking around performance
bugs in a gross way is not something qemu should do.
On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 17:34 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 04:26:41PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > NAK. ?Just wait for the bloody NFS client fix to get in instead of
> > > adding crap like that.
> >
>
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 04/15/2011 10:34 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 04:26:41PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
NAK. ?Just wait for the bloody NFS client f
On 04/15/2011 10:34 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 04:26:41PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
NAK. ?Just wait for the bloody NFS client fix to get in instead of
adding crap like that.
That's totally fine if NFS clie
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 04:26:41PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > NAK. ?Just wait for the bloody NFS client fix to get in instead of
> > adding crap like that.
>
> That's totally fine if NFS client will be fixed in the near future but
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> NAK. Just wait for the bloody NFS client fix to get in instead of
> adding crap like that.
That's totally fine if NFS client will be fixed in the near future but
this doesn't seem likely:
http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-nfs/msg20462
NAK. Just wait for the bloody NFS client fix to get in instead of
adding crap like that.
The Linux NFS client issues separate NFS requests for vectored direct
I/O writes. For example, a pwritev() with 8 elements results in 8 write
requests to the server. This is very inefficient and a kernel-side fix
is not trivial or likely to be available soon.
This patch detects files on NFS and
17 matches
Mail list logo
