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. > -- Stephen Clark *NetWolves Managed Services, LLC.* Director of Technology Phone: 813-579-3200 Fax: 813-882-0209 Email: steve.clark at netwolves.com http://www.netwolves.com