On Fri, 2025-10-24 at 15:41 -0600, home user via users wrote:
> It's not the meta-data handling that concerns me. I understand the
> importance of that, and that the meta-data handling does not take up
> man-noticeable time. Also, editors (vim is the only one I use),
> LibreOffice, and other things make working copies of whatever I open the
> tool on. So changes are applied to the working copy, not the original,
> until I commit the changes (":w" and ":wq" in vim, "Save" and "Save as"
> in most other tools). These all also keep some list of changes for use
> by "undo" functionality. So COW seems redundant with the functionality
> built into (almost?) everything I use. (Hmmm... Is "dnf" an exception?)
I'm not sure what point you're making here. The existence of COW is
transparent to userland processes, so all of that works exactly the
same with or without COW. It's just that with COW it's more efficient
(faster) and in some corner cases will succeed where a non-COW copy on
a nearly-full filesystem could fail. The only places I have COW turned
off is a) swap, and b) VM filesystems (a large file representing a disk
image) where frequent writes could have a performance penalty because
of fragmentation.
poc
--
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
