From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Diego Calleja Subject: Re: Selective Compression/Encryption Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:05:12 +0100 Message-ID: <20081210000512.7be20413@diego-desktop> References: <20081209145952.GA30494@tux64-03> <200812091722.21567.mail@earthworm.de> <20081209180951.GA6551@tux64-03> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: Christian Hesse , miguel.filipe@gmail.com, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org To: "Lee Trager" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20081209180951.GA6551@tux64-03> List-ID: El Tue, 9 Dec 2008 13:09:51 -0500, "Lee Trager" es= cribi=C3=B3: > It does seem that doing it with volumes would limit user control and = add > lots of complexity to such a simple task. IMHO, WRT compression it's the contrary. Compression on a per-file basi= s has never been very succesful (just look at how many windows users use it) because it implies taking a decision for every file on the system. OTOH= , volume-level is just a single option to be enabled. I'm of course not arguing that file-level compression shouldn't be poss= ible, im just saying that is way more difficult to administer and that most p= eople (including sysadmins) is most likely to use compression in a per-volume= basis. -- 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