BTRFS vs LVM for VM storage

[Reindl Harald]

I would like to use btrfs as soon as possible because
end of the year a new machine is needed

but:

* existing LVMs with ext4 must be supported in future
* RAID10 support for the whole os is needed (4 x 2TB)

Am 02.03.2011 19:49, schrieb Josef Bacik:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Richard W.M. Jones <rjones at redhat.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 02:51:50PM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
>>> 2) Fedora 16 ships without LVM as the volume manager and instead use
>>> BTRFS's built in volume management, again just for the default.
>>
>> Sorry I'm a bit late on this gentle discussion, but I have one
>> question about this:
>>
>> I use LVM to store virtual machines, one VM per LV, and it's very good
>> for that.
>>
>> How is BTRFS's performance when used to store VMs (presumably they are
>> stored as files)?
>>
> 
> Good, but the problem is the default behavior of virt manager is to
> use fsync for everything, you have to manually go in and set the
> "Cache" to "None" so it will use O_DIRECT, and then it's just as fast
> as anything else.  Not a big deal if you create everything via the
> command line, kind of annoying if you do it via the GUI, tho all you
> have to do is say "let me edit the options before starting this vm"
> when you first create it, set the cache type and then do the install
> and you are good to go.  Thanks,

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 261 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20110302/3457a3b1/attachment.bin