From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Fedyk Subject: Re: Default to read-only on snapshot creation and have a flag if snapshot should be writable (was: [PATCH 0/5] btrfs: Readonly snapshots) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 13:43:22 -0800 Message-ID: References: <4CF40FE4.2030801@prnet.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: David Arendt , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org To: Andrey Kuzmin Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-ID: On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Andrey Kuzmin wrote: > This may sound excessive as any new concept introduction that late in > development, but readonly/writable snapshots could be further > differentiated by naming the latter clones. This way end-user would > naturally perceive snapsot as read-only PIT fs image, while clone > would naturally refer to (writable) head fork. > I'm not sure we want to take all of the terminology that zfs uses as it may also bring the percieved drawbacks as well. Isn't there some additional overhead for a zfs clone compared to a snapshot? I'm not very familiar with zfs so that's why I ask.