https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11588
Wayne Davison changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11588
--- Comment #26 from Marcus Linsner
---
There is a fix for this feature, here:
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13320
It worksforme.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
--
Please use reply-all
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11588
--- Comment #25 from Коренберг Марк ---
What about fallcate()d area beyond file size ? Will they be synchronized ? Just
curious.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
--
Please use reply-all for most replie
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11588
--- Comment #24 from Theodore Ts'o ---
So a simple workaround would be to use fallocate with KEEP_SIZE at first, then
use punch whole, write the blocks, etc., and then use either truncate to set
i_size, or seek to the desired size minus one and wri
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11588
--- Comment #23 from Wayne Davison ---
> Continuing to think aloud. It's not really a hole, it's already reserved
> space.
Exactly, and it's impossible to punch holes in that allocation. I'm changing my
patch to give the file a size to deal with
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11588
--- Comment #22 from Andrey Gursky ---
(In reply to Andrey Gursky from comment #21)
Continuing to think aloud. It's not really a hole, it's already reserved space.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
--
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11588
--- Comment #21 from Andrey Gursky ---
(In reply to Andrey Gursky from comment #20)
Sorry, it is indeed preallocated. Other still holds: hole-punch doesn't fail
because the file already consists of only hole. Such file I would call a
preallocated
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11588
--- Comment #20 from Andrey Gursky ---
(In reply to Wayne Davison from comment #17)
From what I see, it doesn't fail, since the file is not preallocated at all
with FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE, but just a fully sparse file is created (consisting
of only o
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11588
--- Comment #19 from Wayne Davison ---
Also, to be more like rsync would do you can follow the hole-punch with a seek
and a write so that the file ends up with a non-zero size. Apparently if I
change the order to do the seek & the write first and T
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11588
--- Comment #18 from Wayne Davison ---
FYI, I tested on Linux 4.2.0 and 3.10.0 (I don't have a newer kernel running
here to try).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
--
Please use reply-all for most repli
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11588
--- Comment #17 from Wayne Davison ---
Take the test program and change the SYS_fallocate to use the
FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE flag (don't forget to "rm test-file") and it will fail.
Rsync always pre-allocates with FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE when the flag is av
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11588
--- Comment #16 from Andrey Gursky ---
(In reply to Theodore Ts'o from comment #15)
Theo, thanks for taking time to test it! This works for me too (Debian Testing
4.7.4-2, ext4):
$ /usr/sbin/filefrag -v test-file
Filesystem type is: ef53
File si
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11588
--- Comment #15 from Theodore Ts'o ---
Created attachment 12557
--> https://bugzilla.samba.org/attachment.cgi?id=12557&action=edit
Test program to show that fallocate followed by punch hole works just fine
--
You are receiving this mail bec
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11588
--- Comment #14 from Theodore Ts'o ---
>I believe "on the same file handle" is the unusual prerequisite to trigger the
>>behavior described by Wayne.
I was fairly sure that was a red herring, so I was trying to save myself some
time, but no, it d
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11588
--- Comment #13 from Andrey Gursky ---
(In reply to Theodore Ts'o from comment #11)
Theo,
I believe "on the same file handle" is the unusual prerequisite to trigger the
behavior described by Wayne. Or such a test is already contained in e2fsprogs
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11588
--- Comment #12 from Andrey Gursky ---
(In reply to Wayne Davison from comment #9)
>> Hole-punch works only for full filesystem blocks
> That has nothing to do with it.
Wayne,
OK, might be. I haven't tested it the exactly way you're doing it now,
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11588
--- Comment #11 from Theodore Ts'o ---
Re: #9. I'm not able to reproduce the described behavior. If you want to
follow up on what you think is a kernel bug, please send a simple repro program
or script and what version of the kernel you are usin
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11588
--- Comment #10 from Wayne Davison ---
> ... I can share my work.
Sounds interesting! Looking forward to seeing what you've come up with.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
--
Please use reply-all for m
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11588
--- Comment #9 from Wayne Davison ---
> Hole-punch works only for full filesystem blocks
That has nothing to do with it. If you fallocate() the full file length and
then (on the same file handle) try to punch out parts of the allocated file, no
bl
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11588
--- Comment #8 from Andrey Gursky ---
(In reply to Wayne Davison from comment #7)
Wayne,
since this bug made rsync unusable for me, I fixed that and implemented
additional checks needed for ext4 a month or two after I reported this bug and
saw no
20 matches
Mail list logo