On 06/25/2015 06:44 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
Gordon Messmer gordon.messmer at gmail.com Wed Jun 24 01:42:13 UTC 2015
I wondered the same thing, especially in the context of someone who prefers virtual machines. LV-backed VMs have *dramatically* better disk performance than file-backed VMs.
I did a bunch of testing of Raw, qcow2, and LV backed VM storage circa Fedora 19/20 and found very little difference. What mattered most was the (libvirt) cache setting, accessible by virsh edit the xml config or virt-manager through the GUI. There have been a lot of
Which setting did you find most effective?
optimizations in libvirt and qemu that make qcow2 files perform comparable to LVs.
For migrating VMs, it's easier if they're a file. And qcow2 snapshots are more practical than LVM (thick) snapshots. The thin snapshots are quite good though they take a lot of familiarity with setting them up.