From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stefano Stabellini Subject: Re: Re: blktap: Sync with XCP, dropping zero-copy. Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 16:16:04 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1289604707-13378-1-git-send-email-daniel.stodden@citrix.com> <4CDDE0DA.2070303@goop.org> <1289620544.11102.373.camel@agari.van.xensource.com> <4CE17B80.7080606@goop.org> <1289898792.23890.214.camel@ramone> <20101116161133.GA30645@dumpdata.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20101116161133.GA30645@dumpdata.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Daniel Stodden , "Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , Stefano Stabellini List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Tue, 16 Nov 2010, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > I backported the upstream xen_disk implementation to qemu-xen > > and run a test on the upstream 2.6.37rc1 kernel as dom0: VMs boot fine > > and performances seem to be interesting. For the moment I am thinking > > Can you quantify "interesting"? As in sucks-but-I-can-live-with-it or > wow-it-is-as-fast-as-kernel-blkback? wow-it-is-as-fast-as-kernel-blkback > Or should ask this question later > when you had a chance to run proper benchmarks? that would be better :)