From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:33658 "EHLO aserp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750874AbcCDC6a (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Mar 2016 21:58:30 -0500 Subject: Re: how many chunk trees and extent trees present To: dsterba@suse.cz, Hugo Mills , sri , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org References: <20150417091911.GK22084@carfax.org.uk> <20150417172928.GT25622@twin.jikos.cz> From: Anand Jain Message-ID: <56D8F9C7.70609@oracle.com> Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 10:58:15 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20150417172928.GT25622@twin.jikos.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 04/18/2015 01:29 AM, David Sterba wrote: > 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*. I didn't understand in full what's the idea here, but let met try.. would it not defeat the purpose of encryption which is not to let disk have the un-encrypted data ? Looks like I am missing something here. Thanks, Anand