On 2015-10-16 08:24, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
There is at least one reason other than avoiding ENOSPC and minimizing latency that people may want to avoid reflinking things: They actually _want_ multiple physically independent copies of the same file on the disk. Usually people do go about this wrong (some people I know don't understand that having multiple copies of a file on the same filesystem provides no greater safety than one copy), but that doesn't mean that this isn't a perfectly valid use case for copying a file.On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 01:02:23PM +0100, P??draig Brady wrote:Right. reflinking is transparent to the user, though its consequences are not. Consequences being the possible extra latency or ENOSPC on CoW.You can get all these consequences without doing the file system reflink by using a COW file system, any dedup scheme or thinly provisioned or COW storage devices.Therefore reflinking should be an explicit action/flag IMHO.This still does not make any sense, as it only prevents one of many ways a file could do COW operations underneath. If you don't want ENOSPC use fallocate, or the proposed COPY_FALLOC flag. If you want care about latency you need to carefull benchmark your setup but in general falloc / COPY_FALLOC might be a good starting point. But for 99% of the copies a reflink is exactly the right thing to do.
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
