[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJfpegtdiQzP7t5hc_OaHjSGTrjdZLfKi6fiKqBQ_+AP2Y0-oQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 07:49:46 +0200
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: Zach Brown <zab@...hat.com>
Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@...hat.com>,
Anna Schumaker <schumaker.anna@...il.com>,
Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-Fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>,
Bryan Schumaker <bjschuma@...app.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <mkp@....net>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Mark Fasheh <mfasheh@...e.com>,
Joel Becker <jlbec@...lplan.org>,
Eric Wong <normalperson@...t.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC] extending splice for copy offloading
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 10:50 PM, Zach Brown <zab@...hat.com> wrote:
>> Also, I don't get the first option above at all. The argument is that
>> it's safer to have more copies? How much safety does another copy on
>> the same disk really give you? Do systems that do dedup provide
>> interfaces to turn it off per-file?
I don't see the safety argument very compelling either. There are
real semantic differences, however: ENOSPC on a write to a
(apparentlĂy) already allocated block. That could be a bit
unexpected. Do we need a fallocate extension to deal with shared
blocks?
Thanks,
Miklos
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists