Am 05.03.2018 um 15:52 schrieb Dr. David Alan Gilbert:
> * Peter Lieven (p...@kamp.de) wrote:
>> Am 05.03.2018 um 12:45 schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi:
>>> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 12:13:50PM +0100, Peter Lieven wrote:
I stumbled across the MAX_INFLIGHT_IO field that was introduced in 2015
and
* Peter Lieven (p...@kamp.de) wrote:
> Am 05.03.2018 um 12:45 schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi:
> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 12:13:50PM +0100, Peter Lieven wrote:
> >> I stumbled across the MAX_INFLIGHT_IO field that was introduced in 2015
> >> and was curious what was the reason
> >> to choose 512MB as
Am 05.03.2018 um 12:45 schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 12:13:50PM +0100, Peter Lieven wrote:
>> I stumbled across the MAX_INFLIGHT_IO field that was introduced in 2015 and
>> was curious what was the reason
>> to choose 512MB as readahead? The question is that I found that the
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 12:13:50PM +0100, Peter Lieven wrote:
> I stumbled across the MAX_INFLIGHT_IO field that was introduced in 2015 and
> was curious what was the reason
> to choose 512MB as readahead? The question is that I found that the source VM
> gets very unresponsive I/O wise
> while
