On Fri, Jan 03, 2020 at 11:05:43AM -0500, Robbie Harwood wrote: > Nico Kadel-Garcia <nka...@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 2:48 PM Robbie Harwood <rharw...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> "John M. Harris Jr" <joh...@splentity.com> writes: > >>> On Friday, December 20, 2019 10:59:52 AM MST Chris Murphy wrote: > >>> > >>>> Issuing the command once per week harms no one > >>> > >>> Based on what's actual in the Change proposal, this is not the case. > >>> > >>> Even if this goes through, in my opinion, it should only affect the > >>> GNOME Spin, or perhaps even "all graphical" spins at most. > >> > >> No? This is extremely useful for cloud environments - maybe the most > >> useful. It allows VM hosts to reclaim and reuse empty disk space; > >> otherwise, the disk images just bloat to their maximum allowed size. > > > > Its most useful for the cloud *providers*, not the cloud clients. For > > the clients, getting the AWS space pre-allocated form EBS is often a > > notable performance improvement, and restoring it to AWS saves AWS > > resources. Not the client system performance. > > Sure, but in many cases the client is also the provider. Consider > running kvm on a laptop (which I and many others do for work...) - you'd > really like the disk space back you're not using, rather than each VM > taking 10-20G it doesn't need. I end up having to edit every VM > configuration in two places after each install/provision in order to get > that behavior - that's not reasonable.
virt-manager at least defaults to requesting full pre-allocation of guest disks. The reason for this is that if using sparse raw or grow-on-demand qcow2 files, and the host FS runs out of free space, the guest OS will silently pause execution (the alternative is to report EIO which will cause the guest OS to panic and/or set the FS read-only). Someone using the guest will just see their session inexplicably hang. If it enabled discard on the disks, this would defeat the purpose of requesting full preallocation originally. So it is a trade off between having a guest deployment that is robust wrt host FS space issues, at the cost of using more disk space. Of course this doesn't suit everyone's desires, but I think that it is a reasonable tradeoff for virt-manager/boxes to make. You can get the full configurable control over this by using the virt-install tool to provision guests if desired. 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 :| _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
