 Home |
Products |
Support |
Community |
News |
xen-users
Re: [Xen-users] Re: cow implementation
| To: | xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [Xen-users] Re: cow implementation |
| From: | Molle Bestefich <molle.bestefich@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 25 Jan 2006 13:10:32 +0100 |
| Delivery-date: | Wed, 25 Jan 2006 12:19:27 +0000 |
| Domainkey-signature: | a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=lG8ULKQ80oAsvuEfeH3jdjs+fRi9Ffm1Y733OaIhIHvG0+mvz/JrzBtGAcckW7nkm3AmCrHu4QNsARyaSTd0NPwyaE+EqTf+OgkVcMV8uIO1jqP3SCosY13bnMajCJK2qiBDnx+2+Wft3i9YStWDNNIOv5YS7uuHjnmvR57i/6Y= |
| Envelope-to: | www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20060120143320.96186.qmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| List-help: | <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help> |
| List-id: | Xen user discussion <xen-users.lists.xensource.com> |
| List-post: | <mailto:xen-users@lists.xensource.com> |
| List-subscribe: | <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe> |
| List-unsubscribe: | <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe> |
| References: | <20060120143320.96186.qmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
Steven Anderson wrote: > I would really like to see someone with experience on this start a wiki. I > think a lot of people could benifit from it. That would be nice. I'd be happy to contribute my experiences when I get more time. (Which will probably be a couple of months from now, but anyway.) Personally, I'd like to see some more information on filesystems that zero blocks when they're freed and COW implementations that nukes blocks that gets zeroed from the write target :-). > I also wonder what kind of performance and overhead a COW setup would have? I've seen suggestions that unionfs adds about 15% overhead in a test setup. It's of course dependant on your setup.. The more filesystems you add on top of each other, the slower it will get, I imagine. OTOH, dentrys are usually cached, so it might not be that big in the common case. _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [Xen-users] NetBSD-domU on debian-dom0?, Martti Kuparinen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [Xen-users] How was CoW implemented on the Demo LiveCD (3.0) ??, Anand |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [Xen-users] Re: cow implementation, Steven Anderson |
| Next by Thread: | AW: [Xen-users] Fibre Channel Problem, DIEDERIT |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
