On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 12:35:29PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote: > > > On Jun 15, 2017, at 7:07 AM, Olga Kornievskaia <aglo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reason: it will not hurt any user but it will help for > > server-to-server NFS copy because for each invocation of of > > copy_file_range() it requires that the client sends COPY_NOTIFY, then > > COPY and then a copy triggers a establishment of clientid/session > > before the reading of the source file can happen. All that could be > > saved by have a 64bit value. > > What is the overhead of sending a couple of RPCs vs. copying 4GB of > data on the server? It makes a difference in the clone case, doesn't it? (Though I'd think best there would be a special "copy to end of file" value.) --b.
