On 05/08/2013 12:06 AM, Hitoshi Mitake 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.
Okay, please rebase the patch onto the master. Thanks, Yuan -- sheepdog mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wpkg.org/mailman/listinfo/sheepdog
