On 25/10/2016 07:07, Ketan Nilangekar wrote: > We are able to derive significant performance from the qemu block > driver as compared to nbd/iscsi/nfs. We have prototyped nfs and nbd > based io tap in the past and the performance of qemu block driver is > significantly better. Hence we would like to go with the vxhs driver > for now.
Is this still true with failover implemented outside QEMU (which requires I/O to be proxied, if I'm not mistaken)? What does the benefit come from if so, is it the threaded backend and performing multiple connections to the same server? Paolo > Ketan > > >> On Oct 24, 2016, at 4:24 PM, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 20/10/2016 03:31, Ketan Nilangekar wrote: This way the >>> failover logic will be completely out of qemu address space. We >>> are considering use of some of our proprietary >>> clustering/monitoring services to implement service failover. >> >> Are you implementing a different protocol just for the sake of >> QEMU, in other words, and forwarding from that protocol to your >> proprietary code? >> >> If that is what you are doing, you don't need at all a vxhs driver >> in QEMU. Just implement NBD or iSCSI on your side, QEMU already >> has drivers for that. >> >> Paolo
