Note on cachemodes it seems to make very little real world difference in
which one you pick.
--
Aryeh M. Friedman, Lead Developer, http://www.PetiteCloud.org
___
freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/
Hi Aryeh,
Does this bring up the same power failure scenario issues mentioned in
the link you provided?It seems like the only way to get reasonable
performance is to be essentially unsafe in guest writes to the host
disk?
Use ZFS and a ZIL to mitigate this. Or UFS with journalling.
A qu
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 10:16 PM, Peter Grehan wrote:
> > I have 1 host that dual boots FreeBSD and Ubuntu 12.04.3 LTS and bhtyve
>
>> seems to be atleast 3 or 4 times faster with disk I/O then kvm using the
>> most stripped down command lines I can come up with.
>>
>
> I'm guessing that the defa
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 10:16 PM, Peter Grehan wrote:
> > I have 1 host that dual boots FreeBSD and Ubuntu 12.04.3 LTS and bhtyve
>
>> seems to be atleast 3 or 4 times faster with disk I/O then kvm using the
>> most stripped down command lines I can come up with.
>>
>
> I'm guessing that the defa
> I have 1 host that dual boots FreeBSD and Ubuntu 12.04.3 LTS and bhtyve
seems to be atleast 3 or 4 times faster with disk I/O then kvm using the
most stripped down command lines I can come up with.
I'm guessing that the default cache mode for qemu in that release is
"none". You may want to
I have 1 host that dual boots FreeBSD and Ubuntu 12.04.3 LTS and bhtyve
seems to be atleast 3 or 4 times faster with disk I/O then kvm using the
most stripped down command lines I can come up with.
--
Aryeh M. Friedman, Lead Developer, http://www.PetiteCloud.org
__
