I'm not sure why zfs came up, they don't own the term :). As to zfs/overhead topic, I doubt there's any difference between clone and writable shapshot (there should be none, of course, it's just two different names for the same concept).
Regards, Andrey On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 12:43 AM, Mike Fedyk <mfe...@mikefedyk.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Andrey Kuzmin > <andrey.v.kuz...@gmail.com> wrote: >> This may sound excessive as any new concept introduction that late in >> development, but readonly/writable snapshots could be further >> differentiated by naming the latter clones. This way end-user would >> naturally perceive snapsot as read-only PIT fs image, while clone >> would naturally refer to (writable) head fork. >> > > I'm not sure we want to take all of the terminology that zfs uses as > it may also bring the percieved drawbacks as well. Isn't there some > additional overhead for a zfs clone compared to a snapshot? I'm not > very familiar with zfs so that's why I ask. > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
