Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [OT] Is it still advisable to partition a big hard drive?

[Dale]

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?

[Mick]

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?

[Neil Bothwick]

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?

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 6:59 AM, Neil Bothwick  wrote:
> 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?

[Neil Bothwick]

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?

[Neil Bothwick]

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

[Neil Bothwick]

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