Hi Pádraig, Pádraig Brady <P@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > How different exactly? > OK I tried this myself on F11 with inconclusive results. I can't replicate it now, all tests I am doing report that blocks used before and after the clone are the same. Probably yesterday the difference I noticed was in reality the original file flushed to the disk. > The above suggests that the clone does actually allocate space > but btrfs isn't reporting it through statvfs correctly? The same message appeared here too some days ago, though I cloned only few Kb files, not much to fill the entire partition. > If the clone does allocate space, then how can one > clone without allocation which could be very useful > for snapshotting for example? I don't know if snapshotting is handled in the same way as a "clone", but in this case it seems more obvious to me that no additional space should be reported. > Also I tried the above twice and both times got: > http://www.kerneloops.org/submitresult.php?number=578993 I didn't get these errors. I am using the btrfs git version. Regards, Giuseppe -- 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
