Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 12:43:19 -0700 From: Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> To: Alan Somers <asomers@freebsd.org>, Willem Jan Withagen <wjw@digiware.nl> Cc: freebsd current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: posix_fallocate on ZFS Message-ID: <1518291799.32585.228.camel@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <CAOtMX2jZr_kvJgOZWeiB-AZ3-7-uUu%2BUQ3P0nKhGZ0eNRzwMOQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <1e2f43fd-85da-6629-62d1-6e96790278e5@digiware.nl> <CAOtMX2jZr_kvJgOZWeiB-AZ3-7-uUu%2BUQ3P0nKhGZ0eNRzwMOQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 2018-02-10 at 11:24 -0700, Alan Somers wrote: > On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 10:28 AM, Willem Jan Withagen > wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > This has been disabled on ZFS since last November. > > And I do understand the rationale on this. > > > > BUT > > > > I've now upgraded some of my HEAD Ceph test systems and they now fail, > > since Ceph uses posix_fallocate() to allocate space for the > > FileStore-journal. > > > > Is there any expectation that this is going to fixed in any near future? > > > > --WjW > > > No. It's fundamentally impossible to support posix_fallocate on a COW > filesystem like ZFS. Ceph should be taught to ignore an EINVAL result, > since the system call is merely advisory. > > -Alan Unfortunately, posix documents that the function returns EINVAL only due to bad input parameters, so ignoring that seems like a bad idea. Wouldn't it be better if we returned EOPNOTSUP if that's the actual situation? That could be safely ignored. -- Ian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1518291799.32585.228.camel>