On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 18:50 -0500, jim owens wrote: > Diego Calleja wrote: > > El Tue, 9 Dec 2008 13:09:51 -0500, "Lee Trager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > escribió: > > > >> It does seem that doing it with volumes would limit user control and add > >> lots of complexity to such a simple task. > > > > IMHO, WRT compression it's the contrary. Compression on a per-file basis has > > never been very succesful (just look at how many windows users use it) > > because it implies taking a decision for every file on the system. OTOH, > > volume-level is just a single option to be enabled. > > > > I'm of course not arguing that file-level compression shouldn't be possible, > > im just saying that is way more difficult to administer and that most people > > (including sysadmins) is most likely to use compression in a per-volume > > basis. > > While I have not gotten far enough to prove it is feasible... > > My idea on controlling features like compression is that > the default mode is inherited from the parent in the > directory tree. Thus you can turn it on/off at whatever > granularity you want. >
I had planned to make the bits inheritable from the directory inode flags. There are two different discussions around xattrs for this. One is using xattrs to store the flag, which I'd would rather avoid because it is checked in some performance critical places. The second is using xattr programs to set the flag, which I don't really have an opinion on. The idea of having the flags backed up by backup programs or rsync is really nice, but do any of the backup programs actually copy out all the xattrs? -chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
