On Dienstag, 8. Oktober 2019 11:14:59 CEST Greg Kurz wrote: > > No, it is not a feature. It is still a fix. :) I cannot use 9p without > > this > > fix at all, so it is not some optional "feature" for me. > > I understand your need but this is still arguable. The 9p device has > a limitation with cross-device setups. The actual bug is to silently > cause inode number collisions in the guest. This is partly fixed by the > "9p: Treat multiple devices on one export as an error" patch. Thinking > again, it would even make sense to move "remap" from "9p: Added virtfs > option 'multidevs=remap|forbid|warn'" to its own patch. We could then > consider that the bug is fully fixed with "multidevs=forbid|warn". > > Then comes the "remap" feature which is expected to lift the limitation > with cross-device setups, with a "not yet determined" performance cost > and light reviewing of the code.
Are these patch transfer requests addressed at me to be done? > Also, I strongly recommend you try out "virtio-fs" which is > going to be soon the production grade way of sharing files > between host and guest. > > https://www.mail-archive.com/libvir-list@redhat.com/msg182457.html Yes I know, I am following the development of virtio-fs already of course. However for me it is far too early to actually use it in a production environment. It e.g. seems to require bleeding edge kernel versions. And the real argument for switching from 9p to virtio-fs would be a significant performance increase. However so far (correct me if I am wrong) I have not seen benchmarks that would show that this was already the case (yet). I wonder though whether virtio-fs suffers from the same file ID collisions problem when sharing multiple file systems. What is your long-term plan for 9p? Will it be dropped completely after virtio-fs became stable? Best regards, Christian Schoenebeck
