You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The important detail in regard to this issues is that capacity==allocation.
In the definition by libvirt this is somewhat undefined. In my reading of it this case would also fully allocate the volume.
But - and here is the change in behavior - up until libvirt v4.3 it didn't.
It used to use preallocation=metadata until a change made it issue preallocation=falloc nowadays.
This was found by users wondering about increased time when e.g. creating an image for a new guest.
I was now wondering about virt-managers position on this, do you:
want to modify virt-manager to get back to spare/lazy allocations (TL;DR submit an allocation value that is 0<allocation<capacity?
consider this change a bug in libvirt, so that we should report/change it there? Maybe the comparison there should be >= and not just > in your opinion?
not changing anything as the falloc creation is preferred from the POV of virt-manager
some other way answer I didn't predict :-)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I beg your pardon, I have too late realized that you most likely prefer BZ.
I have opened it in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1759454 as well now.
Please feel free to close the one in the less preferred bug tracker.
Hi,
in Ubuntu bug 1847105 I think I have found a somewhat unexpected or unclear behavior mismatch between libvirt
>v4.3
and virt-manager.For volume creation virt-manager since quite some time (I checked back until
v1.5
) will submit an XML like the following to libvirts volume creation:The important detail in regard to this issues is that capacity==allocation.
In the definition by libvirt this is somewhat undefined. In my reading of it this case would also fully allocate the volume.
But - and here is the change in behavior - up until libvirt
v4.3
it didn't.It used to use
preallocation=metadata
until a change made it issuepreallocation=falloc
nowadays.eventual qemu-img call:
Old:
/usr/bin/qemu-img create -f qcow2 -o preallocation=metadata,compat=1.1,lazy_refcounts /var/lib/libvirt/images/ubuntu18.04.qcow2 15728640K
New:
/usr/bin/qemu-img create -f qcow2 -o preallocation=falloc,compat=1.1,lazy_refcounts /var/lib/libvirt/images/live-server.qcow2 41943040K
This was found by users wondering about increased time when e.g. creating an image for a new guest.
I was now wondering about virt-managers position on this, do you:
0<allocation<capacity
?>=
and not just>
in your opinion?falloc
creation is preferred from the POV of virt-managerThe text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: