From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp-32-i2.italiaonline.it ([212.48.25.202]:43126 "EHLO smtp-32.italiaonline.it" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752170AbbAHSqW (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jan 2015 13:46:22 -0500 Message-ID: <54AED101.6060701@inwind.it> Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 19:48:33 +0100 From: Goffredo Baroncelli Reply-To: kreijack@inwind.it MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Konstantinos Skarlatos , Lennart Poettering , Josef Bacik CC: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: price to pay for nocow file bit? References: <20150107174315.GA21865@gardel-login> <54AD929E.608@fb.com> <20150108133036.GA23096@gardel-login> <54AECB72.9@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <54AECB72.9@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 2015-01-08 19:24, Konstantinos Skarlatos wrote: >> Anyway, given the pros and cons I have now changed journald to set >> the nocow bit on newly created journal files. When files are >> rotated (and we hence know we will never ever write again to them) >> the bit is tried to be unset again, and a defrag ioctl will be >> invoked right after. btrfs currently silently ignores that we unset >> the bit, and leaves it set, but I figure i should try to unset it >> anyway, in case it learns that one day. After all, after rotating >> the files there's no reason to treat the files special anymore... > Can this behaviour be optional? I dont mind some fragmentation if i > can keep having checksums and the ability for raid 1 to repair those > files. I agree with Konstantinos's request: please let this behavior optional. BR G.Baroncelli -- gpg @keyserver.linux.it: Goffredo Baroncelli Key fingerprint BBF5 1610 0B64 DAC6 5F7D 17B2 0EDA 9B37 8B82 E0B5