From owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Thu Sep 22 14:38:36 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12D56BE5957 for ; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 14:38:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from slw@zxy.spb.ru) Received: from zxy.spb.ru (zxy.spb.ru [195.70.199.98]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD4F35E5 for ; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 14:38:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from slw@zxy.spb.ru) Received: from slw by zxy.spb.ru with local (Exim 4.86 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1bn58y-00004T-Kw; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 17:38:32 +0300 Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 17:38:32 +0300 From: Slawa Olhovchenkov To: "Eugene M. Zheganin" Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: zvol clone diffs Message-ID: <20160922143832.GJ2960@zxy.spb.ru> References: <57E3C705.2010702@norma.perm.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <57E3C705.2010702@norma.perm.ru> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: slw@zxy.spb.ru X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zxy.spb.ru); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 14:38:36 -0000 On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 04:56:53PM +0500, Eugene M. Zheganin wrote: > Hi. > > I should mention from the start that this is a question about an > engineering task, not a question about FreeBSD issue. > > I have a set of zvol clones that I redistribute over iSCSI. Several > Windows VMs use these clones as disks via their embedded iSCSI > initiators (each clone represents a disk with an NTFS partition, is > imported as a "foreign" disk and functions just fine). From my opinion, > they should not have any need to do additional writes on these clones > (each VM should only read data, from my point of view). But zfs shows > they do, and sometimes they write a lot of data, so clearly facts and > expactations differ a lot - obviously I didn't take something into > accounting. May be atime like on NTFS? http://serverfault.com/questions/33932/how-do-you-disable-the-last-accessed-attribute-on-ntfs-windows