Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 23:50:01 +0100 From: Willem Jan Withagen <wjw@digiware.nl> To: Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org>, Alan Somers <asomers@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: posix_fallocate on ZFS Message-ID: <4fa8de06-c7a0-5585-4fa7-5bf59b99d627@digiware.nl> In-Reply-To: <1518291799.32585.228.camel@freebsd.org> References: <1e2f43fd-85da-6629-62d1-6e96790278e5@digiware.nl> <CAOtMX2jZr_kvJgOZWeiB-AZ3-7-uUu%2BUQ3P0nKhGZ0eNRzwMOQ@mail.gmail.com> <1518291799.32585.228.camel@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10/02/2018 20:43, Ian Lepore wrote: > 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. I would probably help in my situation.... And I've been looking at the manpage, but cannot seem to find any indication that EINVAL is returned on running it on FreeBSD. --WjW
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4fa8de06-c7a0-5585-4fa7-5bf59b99d627>