Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 20:14:41 -0400
From: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
To: Tomasz Chmielewski <mangoo@wpkg.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org,
        hch@infradead.org, gg.mariotti@gmail.com,
        "Justin P. Mattock" <justinmattock@gmail.com>, mjt@tls.msk.ru,
        josef@redhat.com, tytso@mit.edu
Subject: Re: BTRFS: Unbelievably slow with kvm/qemu
Message-ID: <20100830001441.GA838@dhcp231-156.rdu.redhat.com>
References: <4C7AB645.5090804@wpkg.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4C7AB645.5090804@wpkg.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1194
Lines: 31

On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 09:34:29PM +0200, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
> Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
>> There are a lot of variables when using qemu.
>>
>> The most important one are:
>>
>>  - the cache mode on the device.  The default is cache=writethrough,
>>    which is not quite optimal.  You generally do want to use cache=none
>>    which uses O_DIRECT in qemu.
>>  - if the backing image is sparse or not.
>>  - if you use barrier - both in the host and the guest.
>
> I noticed that when btrfs is mounted with default options, when writing  
> i.e. 10 GB on the KVM guest using qcow2 image, 20 GB are written on the  
> host (as measured with "iostat -m -p").
>
>
> With ext4 (or btrfs mounted with nodatacow), 10 GB write on a guest  
> produces 10 GB write on the host.
>

Whoa 20gb?  That doesn't sound right, COW should just mean we get quite a bit of
fragmentation, not write everything twice.  What exactly is qemu doing?  Thanks,

Josef
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/