From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mari.romanrm.net ([157.7.203.202]:33788 "EHLO mari.romanrm.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754353AbaEEEgY (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 May 2014 00:36:24 -0400 Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 10:36:17 +0600 From: Roman Mamedov To: Brendan Hide Cc: Marc MERLIN , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Using mount -o bind vs mount -o subvol=vol Message-ID: <20140505103617.0e66f5a9@natsu> In-Reply-To: <53670FEA.8050806@swiftspirit.co.za> References: <20140504004732.GE9061@merlins.org> <5365E74B.6020805@swiftspirit.co.za> <20140505005644.GB10159@merlins.org> <53670FEA.8050806@swiftspirit.co.za> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/TUa2QIiCk+9PwLryRpzCZY+"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --Sig_/TUa2QIiCk+9PwLryRpzCZY+ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 05 May 2014 06:13:30 +0200 Brendan Hide wrote: > >> 1) There will be a *very* small performance penalty (negligible, reall= y) > > Oh, really, it's slower to mount the device directly? Not that I really > > care, but that's unexpected. >=20 > Um ... the penalty is if you're mounting indirectly. ;) I feel that's on about the same scale as giving your files shorter filename= s, "so that they open faster". Or have you looked at the actual kernel code wi= th regard to how it's handled, or maybe even have any benchmarks, other than a general thought of "it's indirect, so it probably must be slower"? --=20 With respect, Roman --Sig_/TUa2QIiCk+9PwLryRpzCZY+ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlNnFUEACgkQTLKSvz+PZwjUXwCeIR6YErmZURhT1K+7hsYJKDsz 2mQAn3LI4rKO3mC6FHnwB212PPubHrrR =A2jo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/TUa2QIiCk+9PwLryRpzCZY+--