Giuseppe Scrivano wrote: > Jim Meyering <j...@meyering.net> writes: > >> I am now convinced that cp's new behavior belongs on >> a separate option, --reflink (i.e., it should not be the default). >> Giuseppe, do you feel like adding that option and adjusting your >> test accordingly? > > I attached two separate patches, --reflink option and file-clone test. > Last versions of btrfs have a bug (I asked on #btrfs and they confirmed > it), btrfs doesn't use correctly all the free space available. In fact > I get ENOSPC while in reality only 54% is used. Probably it is better > to postpone the second patch inclusion after the bug is fixed.
That explains some of the weirdness I noticed. Thanks for looking into it. (there was also weird values for `du cloned_file`) > Another note, I changed this line in the NEWS file: > - "when both the source and destination are on the same btrfs partition." > > considering that BTRFS supports multiple devices I am not convinced that > it is always true, I guess source and destination could be on different > partitions, though I couldn't find a clear answer on the btrfs wiki to > this question. I would very much doubt one could clone outside a single file system. If a file system can span multiple devices/partitions then maybe. In any case would be better to say "file system" rather than "partition", as the latter is not directly related. cheers, Pádraig.
