Hello, I am wondering if qcow2 datablock gives a better performance over raw format. Do I have to use separate datastore to be able to use qcow2 images? I am getting performance hit (only 12MB/s) when using 50GB non-persistent raw datablock formatted as ext3. Thanks
200000+0 records in 200000+0 records out 1638400000 bytes (1.6 GB) copied, 157.853 s, 10.4 MB/s real 2m40.021s user 0m0.042s sys 0m3.839s oneadmin@xxx:~> oneimage show 38 IMAGE 38 INFORMATION ID : 38 NAME : data_loc USER : oneadmin GROUP : oneadmin DATASTORE : default TYPE : DATABLOCK REGISTER TIME : 12/05 15:34:46 PERSISTENT : No SOURCE : /var/lib/one/datastores/1/bee8c51f03a40657a114ee3cf505d2a1 FSTYPE : ext3 SIZE : 48.8G STATE : used RUNNING_VMS : 2 PERMISSIONS OWNER : um- GROUP : --- OTHER : --- IMAGE TEMPLATE DESCRIPTION="/data_loc" DEV_PREFIX="sd" DRIVER="raw" TARGET="sdc" Here is a template: DISK=[ BUS="virtio", DRIVER="raw", IMAGE_ID="52", READONLY="no", TARGET="sdb" ]yes
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opennebula.org/listinfo.cgi/users-opennebula.org
