Thanks for the reply
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 10:02 AM, PANKAJ RAWAT
> wrote:
> > Is the degrade in performance is only due to allocation of large cluster
> > during expansion of qcow2 image ?
> >
> > But the trend is same in case of
> >
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 10:02 AM, PANKAJ RAWAT wrote:
> Is the degrade in performance is only due to allocation of large cluster
> during expansion of qcow2 image ?
>
> But the trend is same in case of
> Sequential write
> Random write of 1 GB data
>
> In random i can understand the sparseness of
Thanks for the reply .
i am not using a backing file.
My concern is growing file system.
The performance of 64K is better than 1M , 2M or 32K
Is the degrade in performance is only due to allocation of large cluster
during expansion of qcow2 image ?
But the trend is same in case of
Sequential writ
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 11:01:46AM +0530, PANKAJ RAWAT wrote:
> I theory regarding cluster size it is written that as the size of cluster
> increase performance should increase.
>
> But something surprising happen The performance is degrading as the size of
> cluster increased from 64K to 1M ( d
Hi all
I have been working o the qcow2 image format ,
I theory regarding cluster size it is written that as the size of cluster
increase performance should increase.
But something surprising happen The performance is degrading as the size of
cluster increased from 64K to 1M ( during expansio
