On Fri, 2018-11-23 at 13:43 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 12:48:30PM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 12:43 PM Richard W.M. Jones <
> > rjo...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > It looks like the raw format xz-compressed cloud images that we
> > > ship
>
On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 12:48:30PM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 12:43 PM Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >
> > It looks like the raw format xz-compressed cloud images that we ship
> > use a very large block size, possibly 192M. This is not ideal and it
> > would be better
On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 12:43 PM Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> It looks like the raw format xz-compressed cloud images that we ship
> use a very large block size, possibly 192M. This is not ideal and it
> would be better to use a smaller block size such as 16M so that they
> can be consumed
It looks like the raw format xz-compressed cloud images that we ship
use a very large block size, possibly 192M. This is not ideal and it
would be better to use a smaller block size such as 16M so that they
can be consumed without having to be uncompressed by nbdkit, or even
be used remotely
