At Mon, 06 May 2013 22:20:08 +0800, Liu Yuan wrote: > > On 05/06/2013 10:15 PM, Hitoshi Mitake wrote: > > Ah, I see. But the preallocated objects would consume disk > > space. Removing them physically would be benefitical for thin > > provisioning, I think. How do you think? > > This is just the very unusual case and even if happens, only one extra > object is created, no?
I'm not sure about that. A number of removed objects would not be 1. The number would depend on a way of using disks of guest OSes. How do you think? > By the way, if we don't log the delete operation, > the 'discard command' doesn't return to the guest. So after restarting, > the guest will see the file is still there because inode isn't updated > successfully yet. Then people can re-delete the file, no? Do you mean a failure during discard command? If so, I agree with your opinion. But failures _after_ discard commands would cause problems when the journaling mechanism is enabled. Thanks, Hitoshi -- sheepdog mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wpkg.org/mailman/listinfo/sheepdog
