[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu-img create: set "nocow" flag to solve performance
From: |
Paolo Bonzini |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu-img create: set "nocow" flag to solve performance issue on btrfs |
Date: |
Thu, 26 Sep 2013 18:56:31 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130805 Thunderbird/17.0.8 |
Il 26/09/2013 12:30, Chunyan Liu ha scritto:
>
>
>
> 2013/9/26 Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden <mailto:address@hidden>>
>
> Il 26/09/2013 09:58, Stefan Hajnoczi ha scritto:
> > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 02:38:36PM +0800, Chunyan Liu wrote:
> >> Btrfs has terrible performance when hosting VM images, even more
> when the
> >> guest in those VM are also using btrfs as file system.
> >> One way to mitigate this bad performance would be to turn off COW
> >> attributes on VM files (since having copy on write for this kind
> of data is
> >> not useful). We could improve qemu-img to ensure they flag newly
> created
> >> images as "nocow". For those who want to use Copy-on-write (for
> >> snapshotting, to share snapshots across VM, etc..) could be able
> to change
> >> this behaviour by 'chattr', either globally or per VM.
> >
> > The full implications of the NOCOW attribute aren't clear to me. Does
> > it really mean the file cannot be snapshotted? Or is it purely a data
> > integrity issue where overwriting data in-place puts that data at risk
> > in case of hardware/power failure?
> >
> >> I wonder could we add a patch to improve qemu-img create, to set
> 'nocow'
> >> flag by default on newly created images?
> >
> > I think that would be fine. It's a ioctl(FS_IOC_SETFLAGS,
> FS_NOCOW_FL)
> > call so not even too btrfs-specific.
>
> I'm not sure... I have some questions:
>
> 1) Does btrfs cow mean that one could run with cache=unsafe, for
> example? If we create the image with nocow, this would not be true.
>
> I don't know if I understand correctly. I think you mentioned
> cache=unsafe here, due to the snapshot function? cache=unsafe could
> enhance snapshot performance. But btrfs snapshot (btrfs subvolume
> snapshot xx xx) and qemu snapshot function are two different levels.
> With cow attribute, btrfs snapshot could be achieved very easily. With
> nocow attribute, the btrfs snapshot function should be not working on
> the file.
Does COW preserve the order of writes even after a power loss (i.e. you
might lose a write, but then you will always lose all the ones that come
after it)? If so, you could run QEMU with "cache=unsafe" and have
basically the same data safety guarantees as "cache=writeback" on every
other file system.
Similarly, you could use "cache.no-flush=true,cache.direct=true" instead
of "cache=none".
Paolo
Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu-img create: set "nocow" flag to solve performance issue on btrfs, Chunyan Liu, 2013/09/26