Steven Pratt wrote:
Chris Mason wrote:
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 04:41:48PM -0500, Steven Pratt wrote:
Only bit of bad news is I did get one error that crashed the system
on single threaded nocow run. So that data point is missing.
Output below:
I hope I've got this fixed. If you pull
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 12:57:22PM -0500, Steven Pratt wrote:
Steven Pratt wrote:
Chris Mason wrote:
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 04:41:48PM -0500, Steven Pratt wrote:
Only bit of bad news is I did get one error that crashed the system
on single threaded nocow run. So that data point is missing.
Chris Mason wrote:
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 12:57:22PM -0500, Steven Pratt wrote:
Steven Pratt wrote:
Chris Mason wrote:
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 04:41:48PM -0500, Steven Pratt wrote:
Only bit of bad news is I did get one error that crashed the system
on single threaded
Chris Mason wrote:
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 12:57:22PM -0500, Steven Pratt wrote:
Steven Pratt wrote:
Chris Mason wrote:
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 04:41:48PM -0500, Steven Pratt wrote:
Only bit of bad news is I did get one error that crashed the system
on single threaded
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 01:15:12PM -0500, Steven Pratt wrote:
Chris Mason wrote:
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 12:57:22PM -0500, Steven Pratt wrote:
Steven Pratt wrote:
Chris Mason wrote:
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 04:41:48PM -0500, Steven Pratt wrote:
Only bit of bad news is I did get one error that
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 01:16:56PM -0500, Steven Pratt wrote:
Chris Mason wrote:
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 12:57:22PM -0500, Steven Pratt wrote:
Steven Pratt wrote:
Chris Mason wrote:
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 04:41:48PM -0500, Steven Pratt wrote:
Only bit of bad news is I did get one error that
file is this from?
mount -t btrfs /dev/ffsbdev1 /mnt/ffsb1'
[20090916-11:47:37.738883526] PROCESSING COMMAND : 'run
random_writes__threads_0001 ffsb
http://hks.austin.ibm.com/users/corry/btrfs/ffsb/profiles/btrfs2/random_writes.ffsb
num_threads=1'
So , this is single disk machine
We currently set sb-s_flags |= MS_POSIXACL unconditionally, which is
incorrect -- it tells the VFS that it shouldn't set umask because we
will, yet we don't set it ourselves if we aren't using POSIX ACLs, so
the umask ends up ignored.
Signed-off-by: Chris Ball c...@laptop.org
---
