On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 12:01:26 pm Mark Lord wrote:
> But really, it should be using DM/LVM when there are multiple devices.
Chris Mason addressed a number of these points in this January 2008 comment on
LWN - http://lwn.net/Articles/265533/ - especially:
# This is something LVM cannot provide bec
Kay Sievers wrote:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 22:47, Mark Lord wrote:
Chris / list,
stat(2) seems to return invalid major/minor device info
for btrfs filesystems.
Why? Is this a bug?
This is not invalid and not a bug. It's a superblock without a device,
and expected behavior.
There is no one-
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 22:47, Mark Lord wrote:
> Chris / list,
>
> stat(2) seems to return invalid major/minor device info
> for btrfs filesystems.
>
> Why? Is this a bug?
This is not invalid and not a bug. It's a superblock without a device,
and expected behavior.
There is no one-to-one relati
Hi,
> Mmm.. btrfs appears to configure itself as a "pseudo" filesystem,
> which is why it returns fake device numbers via stat(), similar
> to procfs or sysfs.
Probably because a single btrfs filesystem can be composed of multiple
devices; one major/minor would not be sufficient.
- Chri
Mark Lord wrote:
stat(2) seems to return invalid major/minor device info
for btrfs filesystems.
Why? Is this a bug?
Eg.
[~] uname -r
2.6.31-rc6
[~] mkfs.btrfs /dev/sdb
WARNING! - Btrfs Btrfs v0.19 IS EXPERIMENTAL
WARNING! - see http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org before us
Chris Ball wrote:
Hi,
> Mmm.. btrfs appears to configure itself as a "pseudo" filesystem,
> which is why it returns fake device numbers via stat(), similar
> to procfs or sysfs.
Probably because a single btrfs filesystem can be composed of multiple
devices; one major/minor would not be
Mark Lord wrote:
Chris / list,
stat(2) seems to return invalid major/minor device info
for btrfs filesystems.
Why? Is this a bug?
Eg.
[~] uname -r
2.6.31-rc6
[~] mkfs.btrfs /dev/sdb
WARNING! - Btrfs Btrfs v0.19 IS EXPERIMENTAL
WARNING! - see http://btrfs.wiki.kernel
Chris / list,
stat(2) seems to return invalid major/minor device info
for btrfs filesystems.
Why? Is this a bug?
Eg.
[~] uname -r
2.6.31-rc6
[~] mkfs.btrfs /dev/sdb
WARNING! - Btrfs Btrfs v0.19 IS EXPERIMENTAL
WARNING! - see http://btrfs.wiki.k
The box can get locked up in the allocator if we happen upon a block group under
these conditions:
1) During a commit, so caching threads cannot make progress
2) Our block group currently is in the middle of being cached
3) Our block group currently has plenty of free space in it
4) Our block grou
