Hello,
> > - Implement a system call that reports all checksums and unique
> > block identifiers for all stored blocks.
> This would require storing the larger checksums in the filesystem. It
> is much better done in the dedup program.
I think I misunderstood something here. I thought the checksums per
block would already be stored somewhere in btrfs?
> > - Implement another system call that reports all checksums and
> > unique identifiers for all stored blocks since the last
> > report. This can be easily implemented:
> This is racey because there's no way to prevent new changes.
I got the point.
> > Use a block bitmap for every block on the filesystem use one
> > bit. If the block is modified set the bit to one, when a
> > bitmap is retrieved simply zero it out:
> > Assuming a 4 kbyte block size that would mean for a 1 Tbyte
> > filesystem:
> > 1Tbyte / 4096 / 8 = 32 Mbyte of memory (this should of course
> > be saved to disk from time to time and be restored on startup).
> Sorry, a 1TB drive is teeny, I don't think a bitmap is practical
> across the whole FS. Btrfs has metadata that can quickly and easily
> tell you which files and which blocks in which files have changed
> since a given transaction id. This is how you want to find new
> things.
You're right the bitmap would not scale. So what is missing is a
systemcall to report the changes to userland? (Is this feature used to
generate off-site backups as well?)
> But, the ioctl to actually do the dedup needs to be able to verify a
> given block has the contents you expect it to. The only place you can
> lock down the pages in the file and prevent new changes is inside the
> kernel.
I totally agree to that. How much time would it consume to implement
such a systemcall?
Thomas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
