Also it would be nice to have checksums on the swap data. It's a bit of a waste
to pay for ECC RAM and then lose the ECC benefits as soon as data is paged out.
--
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 3 with K-9 Mail.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body
On 2014-10-22 16:08, Robert White wrote:
So the documentation is clear that you can't mount a swap file through
BTRFS (unless you use a loop device).
Why isn't a NOCOW file that has been fully pre-allocated -- as with
fallocate(1) -- not suitable for swapping?
I found one reference to an
So the documentation is clear that you can't mount a swap file through
BTRFS (unless you use a loop device).
Why isn't a NOCOW file that has been fully pre-allocated -- as with
fallocate(1) -- not suitable for swapping?
I found one reference to an unimplemented feature necessary for swap,
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 01:08:48PM -0700, Robert White wrote:
So the documentation is clear that you can't mount a swap file
through BTRFS (unless you use a loop device).
Why isn't a NOCOW file that has been fully pre-allocated -- as with
fallocate(1) -- not suitable for swapping?
I found
On 10/22/2014 01:25 PM, Hugo Mills wrote:
The new code is the swap-on-NFS infrastructure, which indirects
swapfile accesses through the filesystem code. The reason you have to
do that with NFS is because NFS doesn't expose a block device at all,
so you can't get a list of blocks on an
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 01:39:58PM -0700, Robert White wrote:
On 10/22/2014 01:25 PM, Hugo Mills wrote:
The new code is the swap-on-NFS infrastructure, which indirects
swapfile accesses through the filesystem code. The reason you have to
do that with NFS is because NFS doesn't expose a
On 10/22/2014 01:42 PM, Hugo Mills wrote:
swap-on-NFS is still, I think, in a set of out of tree patches, and
it's not gone anywhere near btrfs yet. It's just that once it does
land in mainline, it would form the appropriate infrastructure to
develop swapfile capability for btrfs.
I just
