From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([65.50.211.133]:36401 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751446AbdH2NAr (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Aug 2017 09:00:47 -0400 Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 06:00:46 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: XFS reflinks Message-ID: <20170829130046.GA28896@infradead.org> References: <04eacb90-aac9-7c47-f074-fa91eb253822@bytemark.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <04eacb90-aac9-7c47-f074-fa91eb253822@bytemark.co.uk> Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: Chris Cottam Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 12:23:13PM +0100, Chris Cottam wrote: > I've got a project where being able to take COW copies of a VMs disc > would be really useful (disc snapshots to be then archived off elsewhere) > > How stable is the the experimental reflinks feature and do you have any > idea when it might be declared stable? I've got a customer that heavily uses (and tests) reflinks. They initially found a few issues, but these days the QA teams finds bugs in decade old XFS code but not related to reflinks.. You're mileage my vary, but I think we should be able to drop the experimental tag now.