From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Guido Winkelmann Subject: Re: RBD layering design draft Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 16:37:12 +0200 Message-ID: <2294446.qgV7dgiTVM@pc10> References: <4FDB9FBB.9000807@inktank.com> <4FE3976C.5000508@dreamhost.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: Received: from unknownsite.de ([62.48.69.106]:34373 "EHLO hartes-hannover.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933085Ab2FVOhO (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jun 2012 10:37:14 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4FE3976C.5000508@dreamhost.com> Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: elder@inktank.com, ceph-devel > On 06/15/2012 03:48 PM, Josh Durgin wrote: > > Then you can perform the clone: > > $ rbd clone --parent pool/parent@snap pool2/child1 > > Based on my comments above, if the parent had not been "preserved" > it would automatically be at this point, by virtue of the fact it > has a clone associated with it. > > Since there is always exactly one parent and one child, I'd say > drop the "--parent" and just have the parent and child be > defined by their position. If the parent could be optionally > skipped for some reason, then make it be the second one. I think that would be a very bad idea. clone would be a good idea; nearly all similar commandline utilities (cp, mv, ln) work like that. clone would be counterintuitive and probably lead to otherwise avoidable mistakes. Guido