On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 12:15:00AM +0200, Nir Soffer wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 12:02 AM, John Snow wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 03/03/2017 04:38 PM, Nir Soffer wrote:
> >> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> RFCv1:
> >>>
On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 01:11:44PM +0100, Alberto Garcia wrote:
> On Tue 07 Mar 2017 11:36:54 AM CET, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> >> The creation scenario is:
> >>
> >> $ qemu-img max-size -O qcow2 --size 5G
> >> 196688
> >
> > Hmm, so that appears to be indicating the amount of physical
On Tue 07 Mar 2017 11:36:54 AM CET, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>> The creation scenario is:
>>
>> $ qemu-img max-size -O qcow2 --size 5G
>> 196688
>
> Hmm, so that appears to be indicating the amount of physical space
> that a qcow2 image would take up before any data has been written to
> it.
On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 09:51:46PM +0800, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> RFCv1:
> * Publishing patch series with just raw support, no qcow2 yet. Please review
>the command-line interface and let me know if you are happy with this
>approach.
>
> Users and management tools sometimes need to
On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 12:15 AM, Nir Soffer wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 12:02 AM, John Snow wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 03/03/2017 04:38 PM, Nir Soffer wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
RFCv1:
*
On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 12:02 AM, John Snow wrote:
>
>
> On 03/03/2017 04:38 PM, Nir Soffer wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>>>
>>> RFCv1:
>>> * Publishing patch series with just raw support, no qcow2 yet. Please
>>>
On 03/03/2017 04:38 PM, Nir Soffer wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>>
>> RFCv1:
>> * Publishing patch series with just raw support, no qcow2 yet. Please
>> review
>>the command-line interface and let me know if you are happy with this
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>
> RFCv1:
> * Publishing patch series with just raw support, no qcow2 yet. Please review
>the command-line interface and let me know if you are happy with this
>approach.
>
> Users and management tools
On 03/03/2017 08:51 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> RFCv1:
> * Publishing patch series with just raw support, no qcow2 yet. Please review
>the command-line interface and let me know if you are happy with this
>approach.
>
> Users and management tools sometimes need to know the size
RFCv1:
* Publishing patch series with just raw support, no qcow2 yet. Please review
the command-line interface and let me know if you are happy with this
approach.
Users and management tools sometimes need to know the size required for a new
disk image so that an LVM volume, SAN LUN, etc
10 matches
Mail list logo