On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 12:32:38PM +0200, Ulrich Spörlein wrote: > On Mon, 04.10.2010 at 14:04:53 +0200, Ivan Voras wrote: > > On 4 October 2010 13:42, Alexander Best <arun...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > > > good point. ZFS should really be added to the list and LFS should go > > > away. are > > > there any other relevant filesystems without a fixed-block size that need > > > to be > > > mentioned? what about afs? or tmpfs? > > > > (it's not that the block sizes aren't fixed, it's that the assignment > > of blocks to the file is not fixed). > > Review of attached patch, anyone? I didn't come up with a clever way to > describe non-COW file systems :/
Looks good, but I'd use a bit different wording. Instead of: +option assumes that the underlying file system does not allocate new blocks +when writing to existing blocks. Maybe something like this: +option assumes that the underlying file system updates existing blocks +in-place and does not store new data in new location. ? -- Pawel Jakub Dawidek http://www.wheelsystems.com p...@freebsd.org http://www.FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer Am I Evil? Yes, I Am!
pgp4H8UPVxeOY.pgp
Description: PGP signature
