On 06/15/2011 07:04 PM, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote:
Looking at some very sparse notes I made on the decision, I think what
tipped the choice was that both qcow2 and lvm added overheads, but lvm
was on the whole system i.e. the host has additional processing on
every i/o whereas qcow2 overheads was only for guest i/o.
I think you were misinformed, or misled. LVM should not present any
noticeable overhead on the host. Using "raw" files to back VMs presents
a significant overhead to guests; the host performs all IO through its
filesystem. Using "qcow2" files presents even more overhead (probably
the most of any configuration) since there are complexities to the qcow2
file itself in addition to the host's filesystem.
critically my note was the thought as well that it would be easier to
move a qcow2 file to another machine/disk if necessary than to move a
It shouldn't be significantly harder to copy the contents of a partition
or LV. The block device is a file. You can read its contents to copy
them just as easily as any other file.

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts


Follow ups

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
posts ‹ prev | 21 of 22 | next ›
Discussion Overview
groupcentos @
postedJun 9, '11 at 5:24a
activeJun 16, '11 at 4:01a



site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase