On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Andrey Kuzmin <andrey.v.kuzmin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > This may sound excessive as any new concept introduction that late in > development, but readonly/writable snapshots could be further > differentiated by naming the latter clones. This way end-user would > naturally perceive snapsot as read-only PIT fs image, while clone > would naturally refer to (writable) head fork. > I'm not sure we want to take all of the terminology that zfs uses as it may also bring the percieved drawbacks as well. Isn't there some additional overhead for a zfs clone compared to a snapshot? I'm not very familiar with zfs so that's why I ask. -- 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
