Hello. I am new to BTRFS, and I don't have it actually running on my system as of yet, at least not for serious data. I am actually hesitating whether or not to take the plunge and entrust my data to this new FS. I have been reading various articles on the wiki, lwn.net and elsewhere re this FS. One thing I read was an advice to mark large files requiring frequent random changes (such as databases or VBox images) as nocow using chattr +C as to avoid fragmentation. However, it is also my understanding that BTRFS avoids having to use a journal because it does COW, whereby new data is written in empty space and the new metadata pointing to this new data is also written in empty space, and finally the file pointer points to the new metadata, freeing up the old data/metadata blocks. (Correct me if I am wrong.) In this case, I am wondering whether using nocow will not affect my image adversely as far as data safety is concerned (and this is more important than avoiding fragmentation). Say the VBox image is being written to directly by overwriting the blocks, but the writing is not yet complete, and the system crashes, wouldn't that potentially leave my image in an unusable state? If the image were in COW mode, then all the new writes would be done to a separate block/extent and probably the metadata would not be updated or something, whereby the VBox image was just left in its older (usable) state without the newer modifications written. If the FS had journaling, there would be a different way to provide crash resistance. But since BTRFS doesn't have journaling, it seems that this suggestion to disable COW on the image file to avoid defragmentation would only make it vulnerable to data corruption. Comments please? Thanks! -- Shriramana Sharma ஶ்ரீரமணஶர்மா श्रीरमणशर्मा -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html