Once upon a time, Richard W.M. Jones said:
> Maybe I'm not understanding your question correctly, but a filesystem
> is more general than LVM. You can create directories corresponding to
> your current VGs and files for your LVs, with the advantage that you
> can nest directories which you can't
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 12:44:46PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Josef Bacik said:
> > These sort of issues are my priority and I've spent the last 2 months
> > specifically working on the kvm performance differences between ext4
> > and btrfs. Now we're not on par with ext4 yet,
Once upon a time, Stephen John Smoogen said:
> I wonder if the btrfs solution would be that you would just use raw
> partitions and not use btrfs for it.
>
> eg
> /dev/sda1 is /boot
> /dev/sda2 is swap
> /dev/sda3 is btrfs /
> /dev/sda4 is VM-01
> /dev/sda5 is VM-02
That would work, but that los
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 11:44, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Josef Bacik said:
>> These sort of issues are my priority and I've spent the last 2 months
>> specifically working on the kvm performance differences between ext4
>> and btrfs. Now we're not on par with ext4 yet, but we aren't
Once upon a time, Josef Bacik said:
> These sort of issues are my priority and I've spent the last 2 months
> specifically working on the kvm performance differences between ext4
> and btrfs. Now we're not on par with ext4 yet, but we aren't 2-3
> times slower any more, maybe at the most we're 20
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 04:15:59PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> I will be unable to attend tomorrow but I have concerns of making btrfs
>> default without a well tested fsck. I'm aware one is due soon but I don't
>> believe 3-4 months
On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 04:15:59PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
> I will be unable to attend tomorrow but I have concerns of making btrfs
> default without a well tested fsck. I'm aware one is due soon but I don't
> believe 3-4 months is enough time to test it well enough. On 2.6.38.x I
> still get
