Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [OT] Is it still advisable to partition a big hard drive?
Mick wrote: > On Thursday 01 Sep 2016 22:57:12 Kai Krakow wrote: > >> Regarding performance: >> >> I wish Linux had options to relocate files (not just defragment) back >> into logical groups for nearby access. Fragmentation is less of a >> problem, the bigger problem is data block dislocation over time due to >> updates. In Windows, there's the wonderful tool MyDefrag which does >> magic and puts your aging Windows installation back into a state of an >> almost fresh installation by relocating files to sane positions. >> >> Is there anything similar for Linux? > Dale will pop in soon to mention the defrag application he was running on > reiserfs, but a potentially more effective defrag method irrespective of fs > (we're talking about spinning disks where this issue applies) is tar off/tar > on > your data. Now someone is asking for me to post something. ROFL Script should be attached. Be forewarned, I have not used this script in ages. I have no clue if it works or not or if it will totally screw up anything and everything. I would recommend trying it on something that doesn't matter or maybe a directory full of copied files to be sure. If it hoses your system, it's not my script and you been warned. I'm not even sure where I got it from. Might be the forums but could be anywhere. By the way, I switched to ext4 and it has a defrag command of its own. Just man e4defrag for details, assuming you have the ext utilities package installed. That would be sys-fs/e2fsprogs by the way. I *think* it works on ext3 as well but not sure. Everything here is ext4 except /boot which is ext2. I guess this is the benefit of large hard drives. I don't have to delete stuff even if I don't use it for a long time. lol Y'all have fun. Dale :-) :-) fragck.pl Description: Perl program
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [OT] Is it still advisable to partition a big hard drive?
On Thursday 01 Sep 2016 22:57:12 Kai Krakow wrote: > Regarding performance: > > I wish Linux had options to relocate files (not just defragment) back > into logical groups for nearby access. Fragmentation is less of a > problem, the bigger problem is data block dislocation over time due to > updates. In Windows, there's the wonderful tool MyDefrag which does > magic and puts your aging Windows installation back into a state of an > almost fresh installation by relocating files to sane positions. > > Is there anything similar for Linux? Dale will pop in soon to mention the defrag application he was running on reiserfs, but a potentially more effective defrag method irrespective of fs (we're talking about spinning disks where this issue applies) is tar off/tar on your data. -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Is it still advisable to partition a big hard drive?
On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 07:48:17 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > > I use a script to handle my snapshots, so snapshotting multiple > > subvolumes is less of an issue, but an option to snapshot a subvolume > > and all its children, or even the whole filesystem, would be nice. > > > > Note that what I want is a snapshot that crosses subvolume boundaries, > so that it is atomic. Not a program that just iterates creating > individual snapshots that don't all happen at the exact same time. Yes, I get that. It would be a nice feature. -- Neil Bothwick If the bank returns your cheque marked "Insufficient Funds," call them and ask if they mean you or them. :-) pgpo9ekX8SOvU.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Is it still advisable to partition a big hard drive?
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 6:59 AM, Neil Bothwickwrote: > On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 13:54:40 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> > Bind mounts? I thought you would use btrfs subvolumes! >> > >> >> Often the bind mounts point to btrfs subvolumes. >> >> Yeah, I guess I could directly mount all those subvolumes, but I find >> symlinks or bind mounts easier. The other factor is that if I have >> unnecessary subvolumes then I'm having to manage snapshots across more >> of them and my snapshots are less atomic, since snapshots don't cross >> subvolume boundaries (which is something which ought to be >> configurable). > > I use a script to handle my snapshots, so snapshotting multiple > subvolumes is less of an issue, but an option to snapshot a subvolume and > all its children, or even the whole filesystem, would be nice. > Note that what I want is a snapshot that crosses subvolume boundaries, so that it is atomic. Not a program that just iterates creating individual snapshots that don't all happen at the exact same time. I'd have to look a little more closely at how the filesystem roots work to see if that is actually possible. I don't know if the root node actually covers all the subvolumes it contains, and how exactly subvolumes are bound to their containing directories. I guess if the structure of the tree doesn't allow a single snapshot at the data structure level another option would be for the filesystem to create a write barrier / lock of some kind while the snapshots are being created, so they end up being consistent anyway. This approach could work even across different filesystems. -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Is it still advisable to partition a big hard drive?
On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 13:54:40 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > > Bind mounts? I thought you would use btrfs subvolumes! > > > > Often the bind mounts point to btrfs subvolumes. > > Yeah, I guess I could directly mount all those subvolumes, but I find > symlinks or bind mounts easier. The other factor is that if I have > unnecessary subvolumes then I'm having to manage snapshots across more > of them and my snapshots are less atomic, since snapshots don't cross > subvolume boundaries (which is something which ought to be > configurable). I use a script to handle my snapshots, so snapshotting multiple subvolumes is less of an issue, but an option to snapshot a subvolume and all its children, or even the whole filesystem, would be nice. -- Neil Bothwick Remember, it takes 47 muscles to frown And only 4 to pull the trigger of a sniper rifle pgpcS56fycjMK.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What's happened to gentoo-sources?
On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 02:33:12 +0200, Kai Krakow wrote: > Am Thu, 1 Sep 2016 22:56:31 +0100 > schrieb Neil Bothwick: > > > > - so my next upgrade would "force" me into deciding going way down > > > (probably a bad idea) or up into unknown territory (and this showed: > > > can also be a problem). Or I can stay with 4.6 until depclean > > > removed it for good (which will, by the way, remove the files > > > from /usr/src). > > > > Depclean won't remove it if you add it to world. > > Multi-slot packages ARE removed by depclean except the last stable > version - which jumped backwards for me because I used an ~arch kernel > that was removed from portage. Not if you specify the version. > Lesson learned: Keep your eyes open. Maybe I put the kernel slot > into my world file, with the opposite downside this has. (note to > myself) That's exactly what I did before I started using sets.conf. There is no downside because I don't want depclean to remove a kernel source package, that's for me to decide on. -- Neil Bothwick "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." (Albert Einstein) pgpgTezVDfTlB.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Can't create valid btrfs on NVMe
On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 03:07:31 +0200, Kai Krakow wrote: > Am Thu, 18 Aug 2016 14:47:07 +0100 > schrieb Neil Bothwick: > > > On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 09:38:03 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > > > > > This is almost certainly a bug in btrfs-progs, or maybe the btrfs > > > filesystem driver in the kernel. > > > > The latter, a later kernel appears to have done the trick. > > > > > I'd suggest raising this on the btrfs mailing list, where it is > > > going to get a lot more attention from the people who develop > > > btrfs. There are a few of us who use it around here, but I'd have > > > to spend a day tweaking the btrfs-progs source to have a guess at > > > where this is bailing out. I suspect somebody over there would > > > have an answer almost immediately. > > > > As our resident btrfs expert, I was expecting you to come up with an > > immediate answer ;-) > > Have you tried an explicit "btrfs dev scan"? If that helps, problems > maybe arise from the udev rules... I tried that. It turned out the problem was that my kernel was too old. Switching to the alt kernel on the CD fixed it. -- Neil Bothwick To be sure of hitting the target, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target. pgpFybRB7vXLi.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature