Or for a completely different approach: I wonder if ftruncate() would be more efficient on COW systems anyway. The minimum thing we need is for the file system to remember the new size, 'cause, erm, we don't. All the rest is probably a waste of cycles, since they reserve real space (or fail to) later in the checkpointer or whatever process eventually writes the data out.
- Re: [PING] fallocate() causes btrfs to never compress ... Thomas Munro
- Re: [PING] fallocate() causes btrfs to never comp... Thomas Munro
- Re: [PING] fallocate() causes btrfs to never ... Dimitrios Apostolou
- Re: [PING] fallocate() causes btrfs to ne... Thomas Munro
- Re: [PING] fallocate() causes btrfs t... Dimitrios Apostolou
- Re: [PING] fallocate() causes bt... Thomas Munro
- Re: [PING] fallocate() cause... Dimitrios Apostolou
- Re: [PING] fallocate() c... Dimitrios Apostolou
- Re: [PING] fallocate() c... Thomas Munro
- Re: [PING] fallocate() causes btrfs to never comp... Tomas Vondra
- Re: [PING] fallocate() causes btrfs to never ... Jakub Wartak
- Re: [PING] fallocate() causes btrfs to never comp... Tom Lane