On 01/23/2013 03:53 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 12:08 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
Mistakenly left this paragraph incomplete, completion follows:
I understand that btrfs is a Different Way Of Doing Things, but I don't
think it flies to tell people 'yeah, the tools you've relied on for
simple info on filesystems for years don't work any more, learn this
whole new set of tools'. There should at least be an effort to make very
standard tools return information that's as close as possible to what
the user wanted. This is particularly important in the context of 'make
it the default': right now we can make a reasonable assumption that
people who pick to install with btrfs are actively interested in it and
willing to learn the Right Way to interact with it, but by making it the
default, we'd be
...causing people who aren't particularly interested in btrfs to use it,
people who probably would be unhappy if the standard tools they'd been
using for years or decades suddenly started reporting what is
effectively nonsense.
Some of the issues with space reporting are really the same challenges we have
with traditional file systems when we have active read-write snapshots under
them. Space accounting gets tricky when things like "rm" can actually increase
the utilized blocks in your storage pool :)
Not sure that there is an easy path forward here and this will clearly take some
time for people to wrap their heads around,
Ric
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
