On Mon 25 Sep 2017 10:15:49 PM CEST, John Snow wrote:
>>- We need a proper name for these sub-tables that we are loading
>> now. I'm actually still struggling with this :-) I can't think of
>> any name that is clear enough and not too cumbersome to use (L2
>>
On 09/19/2017 11:07 AM, Alberto Garcia wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>- We need a proper name for these sub-tables that we are loading
> now. I'm actually still struggling with this :-) I can't think of
> any name that is clear enough and not too cumbersome to use (L2
> subtables? =>
On Wed 20 Sep 2017 09:06:20 AM CEST, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> |---+--+-+---+--|
>> | Disk size | Cluster size | L2 cache| Standard QEMU | Patched QEMU |
>> |---+--+-+---+--|
>> | 16 GB
Am 19.09.2017 um 17:07 hat Alberto Garcia geschrieben:
> Hi everyone,
>
> over the past few weeks I have been testing the effects of reducing
> the size of the entries in the qcow2 L2 cache. This was briefly
> mentioned by Denis in the same thread where we discussed subcluster
> allocation back
Hi everyone,
over the past few weeks I have been testing the effects of reducing
the size of the entries in the qcow2 L2 cache. This was briefly
mentioned by Denis in the same thread where we discussed subcluster
allocation back in April, but I'll describe here the problem and the
proposal in
On 09/19/2017 06:07 PM, Alberto Garcia wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> over the past few weeks I have been testing the effects of reducing
> the size of the entries in the qcow2 L2 cache. This was briefly
> mentioned by Denis in the same thread where we discussed subcluster
> allocation back in April,