Signed-off-by: Peter Lieven p...@kamp.de
---
qemu-img-cmds.hx |4 ++--
qemu-img.c | 37 +
qemu-img.texi|5 -
3 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/qemu-img-cmds.hx b/qemu-img-cmds.hx
index e0b8ab4..266cdf3
Il 25/11/2013 14:57, Peter Lieven ha scritto:
Signed-off-by: Peter Lieven p...@kamp.de
Ok, given this patch I think the cluster_size is the right one to use
here---and also the way you used the optimal unmap granularity makes
sense; you could also use MAX(optimal unmap granularity, optimal
On 25.11.2013 16:11, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 25/11/2013 14:57, Peter Lieven ha scritto:
Signed-off-by: Peter Lieven p...@kamp.de
Ok, given this patch I think the cluster_size is the right one to use
here---and also the way you used the optimal unmap granularity makes
sense; you could also use
Il 25/11/2013 16:32, Peter Lieven ha scritto:
Also, a couple of ideas for separate patches. Perhaps the default value
of -S could be cluster_size if specified? This would avoid making raw
images too fragmented, and compounding filesystem-level fragmentation
with qcow2-level fragmentation.
On 25.11.2013 16:50, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 25/11/2013 16:32, Peter Lieven ha scritto:
Also, a couple of ideas for separate patches. Perhaps the default value
of -S could be cluster_size if specified? This would avoid making raw
images too fragmented, and compounding filesystem-level
Il 25/11/2013 16:55, Peter Lieven ha scritto:
chaning sparse_size from 65536 to 1048576 about 5% performance decrease...
lieven@lieven-pc:~/git/qemu$ time ./qemu-img convert -pp -m 15728640 -S
1048576 /tmp/VC-Ubuntu-LTS-12.04.2-64bit.qcow2
On 25.11.2013 16:11, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 25/11/2013 14:57, Peter Lieven ha scritto:
Signed-off-by: Peter Lieven p...@kamp.de
Ok, given this patch I think the cluster_size is the right one to use
here---and also the way you used the optimal unmap granularity makes
sense; you could also use
Il 25/11/2013 17:11, Peter Lieven ha scritto:
On 25.11.2013 16:11, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 25/11/2013 14:57, Peter Lieven ha scritto:
Signed-off-by: Peter Lieven p...@kamp.de
Ok, given this patch I think the cluster_size is the right one to use
here---and also the way you used the optimal
