On 22 February 2016 at 18:41, Jameson <imntr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 11:28 AM Garmine 42 <mikro...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 22 February 2016 at 17:22, Jameson <imntr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 6:36 AM Guus Snijders <gsnijd...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> >> Op 20 feb. 2016 16:06 schreef "Jameson Pugh" <imntr...@gmail.com>: >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 8:04 AM, Alistair Grant < >> akgrant0...@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On 20 February 2016 at 02:38, Jameson Pugh <imntr...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> You should not use quotas on btrfs currently. It is known to cause >> significant performance issues on the long run (and potentially has >> many undiscovered bugs). If you wish I can dig up the relevant >> discussion on the btrfs mailing list for you. >> > > Well, without quotas, I can just expect my filesystem to fill up, again, > without warning, and completely break. I think I might just have to buy > some extra disks, and try out ZFS for myself. > > Jameson
Maybe you could try to leave a few unpartitioned GBs after the btrfs partition(s). In case the FS fills up just assign the unpartitioned space to btrfs and maybe btrfs will be able to grow over it. Or die with -ENOSPC. But I have never tried this (instead I keep an eye on my disk utilization) so it might be a good idea to try this theory on some loopback devices first :) Regards, Garmine
