On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 03:19:22PM -0400, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
> AFAIK, it shouldn't be failing that way, and should automatically switch to
> mixed mode allocation. A 1G filesystem should work fine for BTRFS, but
> smaller ones will have higher chances of ENOSPC issues (inversely
> proportional to the size of the FS). I would advise against using BTRFS on
> such a small disk (I avoid using it on anything smaller than 4G personally),
> but I'm not one of the developers, and the fact that I feel it isn't a good
> idea doesn't mean it shouldn't work.
Instead of modifying generic/224, maybe it would be better to have a
way to specify a minimum file system size on a per-file system basis.
That way, if some file system does have a minimum size of say, 1G or
4G, it can be configured in one place, instead of needing to modify
every test that uses a small file system size, or forcing all file
systems to use a larger file systems just for the benefit of a single
file system?
Or maybe just fix mkfs.btrfs?
- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
