On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 11:06:54AM +0800, liubo wrote:
> On 05/22/2010 01:03 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > In order for AIO to work, we need to implement aio_write. This patch
> > converts
> > our btrfs_file_write to btrfs_aio_write. I've tested this with xfstests and
> > nothing broke, and the AIO
Hi,
I've been looking at Btrfs and have a couple of naive questions that don't
seem to be answered on the wiki or in the articles I've read on the
filesystem.
First: discovering a file's checksum value.
Here's the scenario: software is writing some data as a fresh file. This
software happen
On Thursday 27 May 2010 15:39:54 Paul Millar wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been looking at Btrfs and have a couple of naive questions that don't
> seem to be answered on the wiki or in the articles I've read on the
> filesystem.
>
>
> First: discovering a file's checksum value.
>
> Here's the scenario:
Hi everyone,
The master branch of the btrfs-unstable tree:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/btrfs-unstable.git master
Has the first round of btrfs updates for 2.6.35-rc. I still have some
pending fixes and patches queued up from other people, but this pull
request has the two
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 03:39:54PM +0200, Paul Millar wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been looking at Btrfs and have a couple of naive questions that don't
> seem to be answered on the wiki or in the articles I've read on the
> filesystem.
>
>
> First: discovering a file's checksum value.
>
> Here's th
Heyho!
(This is using btrfs from Debian's 2.6.32 2.6.32-3-kirkwood kernel (-9
package; btrfs tools is v0.19-16-g075587c)
A few observations about btrfsck:
a btrfsck run on a 2T volume (4 disks) on a QNAP appliance (512M ram) got
killed by Mr. OOM Killer. Initially, I was quite surprised
On Thu, 27 May 2010, Chris Mason wrote:
>
> fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 2317
>
> fs/btrfs/relocation.c | 1991 +
> fs/btrfs/inode.c| 1797 +
> fs/btrfs/file.c
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:18:04AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 27 May 2010, Chris Mason wrote:
> >
> > fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 2317
> >
> > fs/btrfs/relocation.c | 1991 +
> > fs/btrfs/
On Thu, 27 May 2010, Chris Mason wrote:
>
> # git diff v2.6.34 HEAD | diffstat
That still has the potential to be wrong (but got the numbers I expected
this time). It will be wrong in several cases:
- "diffstat" has some random common prefix removal logic that I've never
figured out the
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 06:46:04PM +0200, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> Heyho!
>
> (This is using btrfs from Debian's 2.6.32 2.6.32-3-kirkwood kernel (-9
> package; btrfs tools is v0.19-16-g075587c)
>
> A few observations about btrfsck:
>
> a btrfsck run on a 2T volume (4 disks) on a QNAP appl
Thanks! I've commit both patches.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
I'm trying to create a raid1 (mirrored) raid using two 1 Tb disks.
The result is something twice as large as it should be fore mirrored raid.
Any ideas? Linux version 2.6.34
# mkfs.btrfs -d raid1 -m raid1 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdc1 -L fhome
WARNING! - Btrfs Btrfs v0.19 IS EXPERIMENTAL
WARNING! - see ht
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 03:43:05PM -0400, gm...@innerfire.net wrote:
> I'm trying to create a raid1 (mirrored) raid using two 1 Tb disks.
> The result is something twice as large as it should be fore mirrored raid.
>
> Any ideas? Linux version 2.6.34
>
> # mkfs.btrfs -d raid1 -m raid1 /dev/sdb1 /
Hi,
> I'm trying to create a raid1 (mirrored) raid using two 1 Tb
> disks. The result is something twice as large as it should be
> fore mirrored raid.
https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/FAQ#Why_does_df_show_incorrect_free_space_for_my_RAID_volume.3F
--
Chris Ball
One Laptop P
Thanks for taking the time to answer.
(And what I didn't say: as a pure user, for desktop and for the backup
appliance mentioned, I'm using btrfs so far without any problems. I'm not
hard on it on purpose, but stuff like failed wake-up after suspend to ram
does happen occasionally on the lapto
On 05/27/2010 08:59 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
> Thanks for sending along this test program and bug report. We've fixed
> a few bugs in the O_DIRECT patches, and this is working now.
>
> The merged result is in the for-linus branch of the btrfs unstable tree.
>
> -chris
>
Oh, Thanks a lot. I've se
Just as a followup, my problem appears to be hardware related. It's not
clear yet whether it's a strange failure mode or a configuration snafoo,
disk or controller, but elsewhere I'm seeing a btfs single disk
performance penalty more like 2% over ext[34] which seems completely
reasonable.
So
Josef Bacik writes:
>> a btrfsck run on a 2T volume [with] 512M ram got [OOM killed].
>
> Yes, btrfsck keeps the entire extent tree in memory, so the bigger the
> fs, the more RAM it's going to use.
Is that an inherent property of btrfsck, or do you intend to address it
sometime before btrfs is
18 matches
Mail list logo
