On Thursday 07 February 2008, Chris Mason wrote: > On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 05:49:35PM +0100, Pär Andersson wrote: > > On Tuesday 05 February 2008 21:36:27 Christian Hesse wrote: > > > now that I have a live CD with btrfs support I decided to give btrfs on > > > root partition a try. I have good backups. ;) Here is what I have to > > > tell so far: > > > > Here is one more data point. As an experiment I have used btrfs > > on / since 0.11 was released. Initially I believed that it > > wouldn't survive more than a few days, but I was wrong and now I > > must agree that it is quite stable. Great work! > > > > I have btrfs / on a usb stick, so the old filesystems are still > > safe on the hard drive if btrfs should eat my data. > > > > I have only found two issues: > > > > * No ENOSPC handling really sucks when your root file system is > > on a small usb stick. :-) > > > > * APT (Debian/Ubuntu package management) crashes when it tries to > > read its package lists. I have not had time to debug this yet, > > but a simple "aptitude update" is enough to reproduce the > > problem: > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# aptitude update > > -- snip -- > > Fetched 3B in 0s (11B/s) > > Reading package lists... Error! > > E: Unable to determine the file size - fstat (75 Value too large for > > defined data type) > > E: Can't mmap an empty file > > W: You may want to run apt-get update to correct these problems > > E: Empty package cache > > E: Couldn't rebuild package cache > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# > > Ah ok, this is probably an underflow of i_blocks. If you strace it > you'll probably find the offending file.
You can also try the code I just pushed to btrfs-unstable, it seems to fix i_blocks accounting problems so far. http://oss.oracle.com/mercurial/mason/btrfs-unstable/rev/a503a3f82684 -chris _______________________________________________ Btrfs-devel mailing list [email protected] http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/btrfs-devel
