virtual disk default "No cache" settings weirdness

RolandK

Renowned Member
Mar 5, 2019
963
191
88
51
When I look at promox virtual disk settings , the default for virtual disk is „Default (No cache)“.

The wiki page at https://pve.proxmox.com/wiki/Performance_Tweaks is telling :

„cache=none seems to be the best performance and is the default since Proxmox 2.X.“

The file section in the kvm/qemu process (via ps -ef), looks like this, when „Default (No cache)“ is selected :

-drive file=/btrfs-hdd-zstd/vms-raw/images/110/vm-110-disk-0/disk.raw,if=none,id=drive-scsi0,aio=threads,format=raw,detect-zeroes=on

We see, that there is no cache=…. setting in the qemu command.

Setting „Default (No cache)“ seems to be different from setting „No cache“. When „No cache“ is being selected, then cache=none is explicitly added to the process/commandline.

The qemu manpage at https://www.qemu.org/docs/master/system/qemu-manpage.html is telling:

„The default mode is cache=writeback.“

doesn't that mean, if "no cache setting is applied to the -drive option/commandline, then „writeback“ should be active !?

I found this weirdness while playing around with the settings, as I gut csum corruption on BTRFS, which does apparently happen when using direct-I/O with btrfs.

When I set „Default (No cache)“ I get no csum errors on virtual disk migration, when is set „No cache“ explicitly, then I get csum errors.

that means setting "Default (No cache)" and "No cache" is not the same!?
 
> Setting „Default (No cache)“ seems to be different from setting „No cache“. When „No cache“ is being selected, then cache=none is explicitly added to the process/commandline.

apparently, this seems to be only case when the VM/disk is placed on btrfs,

i found this quirk in the source, i.e. cache=none seems not to be set when datastore is btrfs (i.e. type btrfs, not dir on top of btrfs)

https://github.com/proxmox/qemu-server/commit/0fe779a62cb4755b74fe83e8323495ee03d0176c

but how can pve show "Default (No cache)“ when in reality, it's using a different setting under the hood?

i think applying silent quirks which affect caching/data safety and which show wrong information to the end user is not a very optimal way to go.

i would at least expect a warning message and some mention in the proxmox docs/wiki.
 
Last edited:

About

The Proxmox community has been around for many years and offers help and support for Proxmox VE, Proxmox Backup Server, and Proxmox Mail Gateway.
We think our community is one of the best thanks to people like you!

Get your subscription!

The Proxmox team works very hard to make sure you are running the best software and getting stable updates and security enhancements, as well as quick enterprise support. Tens of thousands of happy customers have a Proxmox subscription. Get yours easily in our online shop.

Buy now!