From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([59.151.112.132]:64292 "EHLO heian.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752826AbcBZB3e (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Feb 2016 20:29:34 -0500 Subject: Re: how many chunk trees and extent trees present To: , Hugo Mills , sri , References: <20150417091911.GK22084@carfax.org.uk> <20150417172928.GT25622@twin.jikos.cz> From: Qu Wenruo Message-ID: <56CFAA79.9020706@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:29:29 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20150417172928.GT25622@twin.jikos.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: David Sterba wrote on 2015/04/17 19:29 +0200: > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 09:19:11AM +0000, Hugo Mills wrote: >>> In, some article i read that future there will be more chunk tree/ extent >>> tree for single btrfs. Is this true. >> >> I recall, many moons ago, Chris saying that there probably wouldn't >> be. > > More extent trees tied to a set of fs trees/subvolumes would be very > useful for certain usecases *cough*encryption*cough*. BTW, will such design makes reflink between different set of extents fallback to normal copy? And I'm pretty sure that inband dedup will be affected too... Thanks, Qu > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >