On 24/09/2016 14:27, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> On 24.09.2016 15:06, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
>> On 24.09.2016 00:21, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 02:00:06PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
My preference would be a new flag to the existing commands, with
Am 24.09.2016 um 14:27 hat Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy geschrieben:
> On 24.09.2016 15:06, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> >On 24.09.2016 00:21, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> >>On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 02:00:06PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
> >>>My preference would be a new flag to the existing comma
On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 11:19:53PM +0300, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> On 24.09.2016 21:24, Alex Bligh wrote:
> > > On 24 Sep 2016, at 18:47, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > I just wanted to say, that if we want a possibility of clearing the whole
> > > disk in on
On 24.09.2016 21:24, Alex Bligh wrote:
On 24 Sep 2016, at 18:47, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
wrote:
I just wanted to say, that if we want a possibility of clearing the whole disk
in one request for qcow2 we have to take 512 as granularity for such requests
(with X = 9). An this is too small
> On 24 Sep 2016, at 18:47, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
> wrote:
>
> I just wanted to say, that if we want a possibility of clearing the whole
> disk in one request for qcow2 we have to take 512 as granularity for such
> requests (with X = 9). An this is too small. 1tb will be the upper boun
On 24.09.2016 20:32, Alex Bligh wrote:
On 24 Sep 2016, at 18:13, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
wrote:
On 24.09.2016 19:49, Alex Bligh wrote:
On 24 Sep 2016, at 17:42, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
wrote:
On 24.09.2016 19:31, Alex Bligh wrote:
On 24 Sep 2016, at 13:06, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogi
> On 24 Sep 2016, at 18:13, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
> wrote:
>
> On 24.09.2016 19:49, Alex Bligh wrote:
>>> On 24 Sep 2016, at 17:42, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 24.09.2016 19:31, Alex Bligh wrote:
> On 24 Sep 2016, at 13:06, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
On 24.09.2016 20:13, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
On 24.09.2016 19:49, Alex Bligh wrote:
On 24 Sep 2016, at 17:42, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
wrote:
On 24.09.2016 19:31, Alex Bligh wrote:
On 24 Sep 2016, at 13:06, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
wrote:
Note: if disk size is not alig
On 24.09.2016 19:49, Alex Bligh wrote:
On 24 Sep 2016, at 17:42, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
wrote:
On 24.09.2016 19:31, Alex Bligh wrote:
On 24 Sep 2016, at 13:06, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
wrote:
Note: if disk size is not aligned to X we will have to send request larger than
the dis
> On 24 Sep 2016, at 17:52, Alex Bligh wrote:
>
> In *your* use-case holes may be desirable. However in the general case, you
> cannot assume a server supports holes. Optional support for holes isn't even
> in the mainline spec yet (AFAIR).
You should also be aware that the minimum granularit
> On 24 Sep 2016, at 17:48, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
> wrote:
>
>>> Use NBD_CMD_WRITE_ZEROES without NBD_CMD_FLAG_NO_HOLE and you can pretty
>>> much assume that a server that supports holes will write holes. A server
>>> that does not support holes will write zeroes. If you don't care wh
> On 24 Sep 2016, at 17:42, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
> wrote:
>
> On 24.09.2016 19:31, Alex Bligh wrote:
>>> On 24 Sep 2016, at 13:06, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Note: if disk size is not aligned to X we will have to send request larger
>>> than the disk size to cle
On 24.09.2016 19:44, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
On 24.09.2016 19:35, Alex Bligh wrote:
On 24 Sep 2016, at 17:20, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
wrote:
Also, accordingly to documentation, NBD_CMD_TRIM is not appropriate
for disk clearing:
* `NBD_CMD_TRIM` (4)
A hint to the s
On 24.09.2016 19:35, Alex Bligh wrote:
On 24 Sep 2016, at 17:20, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
wrote:
Also, accordingly to documentation, NBD_CMD_TRIM is not appropriate for disk
clearing:
* `NBD_CMD_TRIM` (4)
A hint to the server that the data defined by len and offset is no
l
On 24.09.2016 19:31, Alex Bligh wrote:
On 24 Sep 2016, at 13:06, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
wrote:
Note: if disk size is not aligned to X we will have to send request larger than
the disk size to clear the whole disk.
If you look at the block size extension, the size of the disk must be an
> On 24 Sep 2016, at 17:20, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
> wrote:
>
> Also, accordingly to documentation, NBD_CMD_TRIM is not appropriate for disk
> clearing:
>
> * `NBD_CMD_TRIM` (4)
>
> A hint to the server that the data defined by len and offset is no
> longer needed. A server
On 09/24/2016 12:21 AM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 02:00:06PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
>> My preference would be a new flag to the existing commands, with
>> explicit documentation that 0 offset and 0 length must be used with that
>> flag, when requesting a full-device wipe.
>
> On 24 Sep 2016, at 13:06, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
> wrote:
>
> Note: if disk size is not aligned to X we will have to send request larger
> than the disk size to clear the whole disk.
If you look at the block size extension, the size of the disk must be an exact
multiple of the minimu
On 24.09.2016 16:42, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
On 24.09.2016 15:06, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
On 24.09.2016 00:21, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 02:00:06PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
My preference would be a new flag to the existing commands, with
explicit do
On 24.09.2016 15:06, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
On 24.09.2016 00:21, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 02:00:06PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
My preference would be a new flag to the existing commands, with
explicit documentation that 0 offset and 0 length must be used with
On 24.09.2016 15:06, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
On 24.09.2016 00:21, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 02:00:06PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
My preference would be a new flag to the existing commands, with
explicit documentation that 0 offset and 0 length must be used with
On 24.09.2016 00:21, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 02:00:06PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
My preference would be a new flag to the existing commands, with
explicit documentation that 0 offset and 0 length must be used with that
flag, when requesting a full-device wipe.
Alternative
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 02:00:06PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
> My preference would be a new flag to the existing commands, with
> explicit documentation that 0 offset and 0 length must be used with that
> flag, when requesting a full-device wipe.
Alternatively, what about a flag that says "if you u
On 09/23/2016 01:32 PM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> There is a following problem. When we need to write_zeroes or trim the
> whole disk, we have to do it iteratively, because of 32-bit restriction
> on request length.
> For example, current implementation of mirror (see mirro
Hi all!
There is a following problem. When we need to write_zeroes or trim the
whole disk, we have to do it iteratively, because of 32-bit restriction
on request length.
For example, current implementation of mirror (see mirror_dirty_init())
do this by chunks of 2147418112 bytes (with default
25 matches
Mail list logo