|
From: | Anthony Liguori |
Subject: | Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Revert block-qcow2.c to kvm-72 version due to corruption reports |
Date: | Mon, 16 Feb 2009 20:55:11 -0600 |
User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090105) |
Jamie Lokier wrote:
Anthony Liguori wrote:It's always been that way. It's unsafe for a number of reasons that have been discussed at great length.And let's be clear, your data is *not* safe with qcow2. So I don't consider this to be a show stopping issue.I beg your pardon? The one format that was recommended for quite a long time now is considered unsafe?It sure isn't mentioned in the documentation. If it was, I would never have used it, and I imagine I'm not alone. QEMU might be an emulator project where people expect quirks, but KVM and Xen are professional virtualisation platforms competing with VMware. It is really not very professional that the documentation places "your data is not safe" formats on an equal footing with safe formats - without saying anything about it - and doesn't even recommend one or the other.
Please submit patches. I don't disagree with you and that is why I'm trying to make this clear now.
That said, maybe Microsoft is doing the same thing - their documentation happily recommends their VHD format if you're not concerned about running out of disk space, and it's maybe VHD has similar corruption windows.
Yeah, it's hard to make a truly reliable format that isn't raw. It basically is the same problem file systems solve and requires either a journal or an fsck step. I'm thinking that this is a problem for other software too.
Regards, Anthony Liguori
-- Jamie
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |