On 24/09/2016 14:27, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> On 24.09.2016 15:06, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
>> On 24.09.2016 00:21, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 02:00:06PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
My preference would be a new flag to the existing commands, with
Am 24.09.2016 um 14:27 hat Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy geschrieben:
> On 24.09.2016 15:06, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> >On 24.09.2016 00:21, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> >>On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 02:00:06PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
> >>>My preference would be a new flag to the existing
On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 11:19:53PM +0300, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> On 24.09.2016 21:24, Alex Bligh wrote:
> > > On 24 Sep 2016, at 18:47, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > I just wanted to say, that if we want a possibility of clearing
On 24.09.2016 21:24, Alex Bligh wrote:
On 24 Sep 2016, at 18:47, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
wrote:
I just wanted to say, that if we want a possibility of clearing the whole disk
in one request for qcow2 we have to take 512 as granularity for such requests
(with X
> On 24 Sep 2016, at 18:47, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
> wrote:
>
> I just wanted to say, that if we want a possibility of clearing the whole
> disk in one request for qcow2 we have to take 512 as granularity for such
> requests (with X = 9). An this is too small.
On 24.09.2016 20:32, Alex Bligh wrote:
On 24 Sep 2016, at 18:13, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
wrote:
On 24.09.2016 19:49, Alex Bligh wrote:
On 24 Sep 2016, at 17:42, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
wrote:
On 24.09.2016 19:31, Alex Bligh
> On 24 Sep 2016, at 18:13, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
> wrote:
>
> On 24.09.2016 19:49, Alex Bligh wrote:
>>> On 24 Sep 2016, at 17:42, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 24.09.2016 19:31, Alex Bligh wrote:
> On 24
On 24.09.2016 20:13, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
On 24.09.2016 19:49, Alex Bligh wrote:
On 24 Sep 2016, at 17:42, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
wrote:
On 24.09.2016 19:31, Alex Bligh wrote:
On 24 Sep 2016, at 13:06, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
On 24.09.2016 19:49, Alex Bligh wrote:
On 24 Sep 2016, at 17:42, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
wrote:
On 24.09.2016 19:31, Alex Bligh wrote:
On 24 Sep 2016, at 13:06, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
wrote:
Note: if disk size is not aligned
> On 24 Sep 2016, at 17:52, Alex Bligh wrote:
>
> In *your* use-case holes may be desirable. However in the general case, you
> cannot assume a server supports holes. Optional support for holes isn't even
> in the mainline spec yet (AFAIR).
You should also be aware that the
> On 24 Sep 2016, at 17:48, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
> wrote:
>
>>> Use NBD_CMD_WRITE_ZEROES without NBD_CMD_FLAG_NO_HOLE and you can pretty
>>> much assume that a server that supports holes will write holes. A server
>>> that does not support holes will write
> On 24 Sep 2016, at 17:42, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
> wrote:
>
> On 24.09.2016 19:31, Alex Bligh wrote:
>>> On 24 Sep 2016, at 13:06, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Note: if disk size is not aligned to X we will have
On 24.09.2016 19:44, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
On 24.09.2016 19:35, Alex Bligh wrote:
On 24 Sep 2016, at 17:20, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
wrote:
Also, accordingly to documentation, NBD_CMD_TRIM is not appropriate
for disk clearing:
* `NBD_CMD_TRIM`
On 24.09.2016 19:35, Alex Bligh wrote:
On 24 Sep 2016, at 17:20, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
wrote:
Also, accordingly to documentation, NBD_CMD_TRIM is not appropriate for disk
clearing:
* `NBD_CMD_TRIM` (4)
A hint to the server that the data defined by
On 24.09.2016 19:31, Alex Bligh wrote:
On 24 Sep 2016, at 13:06, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
wrote:
Note: if disk size is not aligned to X we will have to send request larger than
the disk size to clear the whole disk.
If you look at the block size extension, the
> On 24 Sep 2016, at 17:20, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
> wrote:
>
> Also, accordingly to documentation, NBD_CMD_TRIM is not appropriate for disk
> clearing:
>
> * `NBD_CMD_TRIM` (4)
>
> A hint to the server that the data defined by len and offset is no
>
> On 24 Sep 2016, at 13:06, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
> wrote:
>
> Note: if disk size is not aligned to X we will have to send request larger
> than the disk size to clear the whole disk.
If you look at the block size extension, the size of the disk must be an
On 09/24/2016 12:21 AM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 02:00:06PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
>> My preference would be a new flag to the existing commands, with
>> explicit documentation that 0 offset and 0 length must be used with that
>> flag, when requesting a full-device wipe.
On 24.09.2016 16:42, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
On 24.09.2016 15:06, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
On 24.09.2016 00:21, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 02:00:06PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
My preference would be a new flag to the existing commands, with
explicit
On 24.09.2016 15:06, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
On 24.09.2016 00:21, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 02:00:06PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
My preference would be a new flag to the existing commands, with
explicit documentation that 0 offset and 0 length must be used with
On 24.09.2016 15:06, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
On 24.09.2016 00:21, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 02:00:06PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
My preference would be a new flag to the existing commands, with
explicit documentation that 0 offset and 0 length must be used with
On 24.09.2016 00:21, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 02:00:06PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
My preference would be a new flag to the existing commands, with
explicit documentation that 0 offset and 0 length must be used with that
flag, when requesting a full-device wipe.
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 02:00:06PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
> My preference would be a new flag to the existing commands, with
> explicit documentation that 0 offset and 0 length must be used with that
> flag, when requesting a full-device wipe.
Alternatively, what about a flag that says "if you
On 09/23/2016 01:32 PM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> There is a following problem. When we need to write_zeroes or trim the
> whole disk, we have to do it iteratively, because of 32-bit restriction
> on request length.
> For example, current implementation of mirror (see
Hi all!
There is a following problem. When we need to write_zeroes or trim the
whole disk, we have to do it iteratively, because of 32-bit restriction
on request length.
For example, current implementation of mirror (see mirror_dirty_init())
do this by chunks of 2147418112 bytes (with default
25 matches
Mail list logo