On 05/24/2017 07:20 PM, Alberto Garcia wrote:
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?
64k cluster, 2g image, write 32m in portions of 4k at random offsets
/Anton
