On Thu, 2008-12-11 at 17:03 -0500, Lee Trager wrote:
On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 03:22:29PM -0500, jim owens wrote:
Joshua J. Berry wrote:
On Tuesday 09 December 2008 08:35:16 Chris Mason wrote:
On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 09:59 -0500, Lee Trager wrote:
Currently compression and I assume if
On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 03:22:29PM -0500, jim owens wrote:
Joshua J. Berry wrote:
On Tuesday 09 December 2008 08:35:16 Chris Mason wrote:
On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 09:59 -0500, Lee Trager wrote:
Currently compression and I assume if encryption is implemented it is
turned on or off during mount.
Having a 3 possible states for each file would seem sensible:
1. Compression Enabled - this file or folder will be compressed.
2. Compression Disabled - this file or folder will never be compressed.
3. Not Specified - This will inherit the compression state from it's parent.
To keep this
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Jeremy Sanders
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Miguel Figueiredo Mascarenhas Sousa Filipe wrote:
Things like compression or encription should be used at the volume
level. So.. if a user wants a specific set of files or dirs ..they should
create a mount-point/volume
On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 15:22 -0500, jim owens wrote:
Joshua J. Berry wrote:
[ storing compression flags ]
It seems like xattrs would be preferable to some btrfs-specific tunable, as
programs like rsync or backup tools would be able to preserve (and restore)
these bits with no extra
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 08:44:47AM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
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
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 08:44:47AM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
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
On Wednesday 10 December 2008 05:44:47 Chris Mason wrote:
[snip]
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
Hi there,
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Lee Trager [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Currently compression and I assume if encryption is implemented it is
turned on or off during mount. There are however many times when a user may
want to select which files/directories they want to compress or
On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 05:22:18PM +0100, Christian Hesse wrote:
On Tuesday 09 December 2008, Miguel Figueiredo Mascarenhas Sousa Filipe wrote:
Hi there,
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Lee Trager [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Currently compression and I assume if encryption is implemented it
Would you suggest using the existing chattr/lsattr commands from
e2fsprogs for userspace control and just add support at the kernel
level?
Miguel suggested this be done at the volume level. Do you have any
thoughts on that?
Thanks,
Lee
On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 11:35:16AM -0500, Chris Mason
On Tuesday 09 December 2008 08:35:16 Chris Mason wrote:
On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 09:59 -0500, Lee Trager wrote:
Currently compression and I assume if encryption is implemented it is
turned on or off during mount. There are however many times when a user
may want to select which
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Lee Trager [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 05:22:18PM +0100, Christian Hesse wrote:
On Tuesday 09 December 2008, Miguel Figueiredo Mascarenhas Sousa Filipe
wrote:
Hi there,
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Lee Trager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
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
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.
That seems like the ideal solution to
16 matches
Mail list logo
