On Wed 24 May 2017 06:09:42 PM CEST, Anton Nefedov wrote: > I agree; as mentioned we have similar patches and they don't conflict > much. We noticed a performance regression on HDD though, for the > presumably optimized case (random 4k write over a large backed image); > so the patches were put on hold.
Interesting, I think that scenario was noticeably faster in my tests. What cluster size(s) and image size(s) were you using? Berto
