On Tue 22 Sep 2015 05:00:05 PM CEST, Max Reitz wrote:
>> The correct way to solve this seems to be that each BB has its own
>> I/O throttling filter. Actually, if we could lift the throttling code
>> to BlockBackend, that might solve the problem.
>
> So yes, as long as we have throttling on the
On 09/29/2015 05:17 AM, Alberto Garcia wrote:
> On Tue 22 Sep 2015 05:00:05 PM CEST, Max Reitz wrote:
>
>>> The correct way to solve this seems to be that each BB has its own
>>> I/O throttling filter. Actually, if we could lift the throttling code
>>> to BlockBackend, that might solve the
Am 29.09.2015 um 14:30 hat Eric Blake geschrieben:
> On 09/29/2015 05:17 AM, Alberto Garcia wrote:
> > On Tue 22 Sep 2015 05:00:05 PM CEST, Max Reitz wrote:
> >
> >>> The correct way to solve this seems to be that each BB has its own
> >>> I/O throttling filter. Actually, if we could lift the
Am 18.09.2015 um 17:22 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
> This structure will store some of the state of the root BDS if the BDS
> tree is removed, so that state can be restored once a new BDS tree is
> inserted.
This is magic that is bound to bite us sooner or later. I see that we
have to do this in
On 22.09.2015 16:17, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 18.09.2015 um 17:22 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
>> This structure will store some of the state of the root BDS if the BDS
>> tree is removed, so that state can be restored once a new BDS tree is
>> inserted.
>
> This is magic that is bound to bite us