On 06/15/2016 03:34 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
On 06/15/2016 02:46 AM, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
On 06/15/2016 06:00 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
On 06/14/2016 09:25 AM, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
With a bdrv_co_write_zeroes method on a target BDS zeroes will not be
placed
into the wire. Thus the target could be
On 06/15/2016 03:34 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
On 06/15/2016 02:46 AM, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
On 06/15/2016 06:00 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
On 06/14/2016 09:25 AM, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
With a bdrv_co_write_zeroes method on a target BDS zeroes will not be
placed
into the wire. Thus the target could be
On 06/15/2016 02:46 AM, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
> On 06/15/2016 06:00 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
>> On 06/14/2016 09:25 AM, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
>>> With a bdrv_co_write_zeroes method on a target BDS zeroes will not be
>>> placed
>>> into the wire. Thus the target could be very efficiently zeroed out.
On 06/15/2016 06:00 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
On 06/14/2016 09:25 AM, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
With a bdrv_co_write_zeroes method on a target BDS zeroes will not be placed
into the wire. Thus the target could be very efficiently zeroed out. This
is should be done with the largest chunk possible.
This
On 06/14/2016 09:25 AM, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
> With a bdrv_co_write_zeroes method on a target BDS zeroes will not be placed
> into the wire. Thus the target could be very efficiently zeroed out. This
> is should be done with the largest chunk possible.
>
> This improves the performance of the
With a bdrv_co_write_zeroes method on a target BDS zeroes will not be placed
into the wire. Thus the target could be very efficiently zeroed out. This
is should be done with the largest chunk possible.
This improves the performance of the live migration of the empty disk by
150 times if NBD
