|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] libvirt, libxl and QDISKs
On 26/04/13 12:10, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2013, Jim Fehlig wrote:
>> if (l_disk->driverName) {
>> if (STREQ(l_disk->driverName, "tap") ||
>> STREQ(l_disk->driverName, "tap2")) {
>> switch (l_disk->format) {
>> case VIR_STORAGE_FILE_QCOW:
>> x_disk->format = LIBXL_DISK_FORMAT_QCOW;
>> x_disk->backend = LIBXL_DISK_BACKEND_QDISK;
>> break;
>> case VIR_STORAGE_FILE_QCOW2:
>> x_disk->format = LIBXL_DISK_FORMAT_QCOW2;
>> x_disk->backend = LIBXL_DISK_BACKEND_QDISK;
>> break;
>> case VIR_STORAGE_FILE_VHD:
>> x_disk->format = LIBXL_DISK_FORMAT_VHD;
>> x_disk->backend = LIBXL_DISK_BACKEND_TAP;
>> break;
>> case VIR_STORAGE_FILE_NONE:
>> /* No subtype specified, default to raw/tap */
>> case VIR_STORAGE_FILE_RAW:
>> x_disk->format = LIBXL_DISK_FORMAT_RAW;
>> x_disk->backend = LIBXL_DISK_BACKEND_TAP;
>> break;
>> default:
>> virReportError(VIR_ERR_INTERNAL_ERROR,
>> _("libxenlight does not support disk
>> driver %s"),
>>
>> virStorageFileFormatTypeToString(l_disk->format));
>> return -1;
>> }
>> } else if (STREQ(l_disk->driverName, "file")) {
>> x_disk->format = LIBXL_DISK_FORMAT_RAW;
>> x_disk->backend = LIBXL_DISK_BACKEND_TAP;
>> } else if (STREQ(l_disk->driverName, "phy")) {
>> x_disk->format = LIBXL_DISK_FORMAT_RAW;
>> x_disk->backend = LIBXL_DISK_BACKEND_PHY;
>> } else {
>> virReportError(VIR_ERR_INTERNAL_ERROR,
>> _("libxenlight does not support disk driver %s"),
>> l_disk->driverName);
>> return -1;
>> }
>> } else {
>> /*
>> * If driverName is not specified, default to raw as per
>> * xl-disk-configuration.txt in the xen documentation and let
>> * libxl pick a suitable backend.
>> */
>> x_disk->format = LIBXL_DISK_FORMAT_RAW;
>> x_disk->backend = LIBXL_DISK_BACKEND_UNKNOWN;
>> }
>
> It looks like the defaults are the same of libxl.
>
> However the mapping of RAW to TAP (libxl does the same) has always been
> a bit dubious to me: now that upstream QEMU is used with HVM guests too
> by libxl, there is no reason to use blktap over QEMU for raw files any
> more.
Qemu should indeed be much faster than blktap when using recent Linux
kernels in the DomU due to persistent grants, I don't think blktap can
provide the same performance, although I have not tested it. With Qemu
we can get 900k IOPS.
http://xenbits.xen.org/people/royger/persistent_read_qemu.png
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |