12.07.2016 15:25, Austin S. Hemmelgarn пишет: > > I'm not changing my init system just to add functionality that should > already exist in btrfs-progs. The fact that the balance ioctl is > synchronous was a poor design choice, and we need to provide the option > to work around that independent of what our users are running. There's > been enough interest from other people that it should be obvious that > people want this _in_ btrfs-progs. The point is to not _need_ anything > else to do this.
May be I miss something obvious, but what is wrong with nohup btrfs balance start & nohup is definitely available on every system and so far I have been using it in exactly such cases when I needed to leave something running for a long time. -- 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
