Did you ever say something positive about btrfs? :D All I read from in
the last months is complaining about btrfs.
In this case it was his fault because he forget to update the fstab. Im
pretty sure it was also your fault when you screwed up your 2.6.38.5
kernel...
I'm sorry but it seems that
Hallo, Felix,
Du meintest am 10.07.11:
Did you ever say something positive about btrfs? :D All I read from
in the last months is complaining about btrfs.
I use it, since many months.
But it's still an adventure, I won't use it for valuable data.
I'm sorry but it seems that 90% for your
Now that I've got a working prototype of subvolume quota, I'd like to
get some feedback on the on-disk structure and the commands I intend
to use.
As a short name, I propose qgroups, as the most distinguishing feature
of this implementation is that you can not only put a quota on sub-
volumes,
On 07/09/2011 07:28 PM, cac...@quantum-sci.com wrote:
On Saturday 9 July, 2011 10:12:43 you wrote:
If your btrfs lives on two or more devices you will have to run
'btrfs device scan' prior to mount or give all devices as arguments
to mount.btrfs.
Ohhh, I'd added a disk drive without
On Sun, 3 Jul 2011 05:45:17 AM Calvin Walton wrote:
The discard option is not currently automatically enabled; I think
there may have been some performance issues in certain cases with
drives that have slow trim implementations. But feel free to give
it a try.
This LWN article from 2009
Excerpts from Stephane Chazelas's message of 2011-07-09 16:36:50 -0400:
2011-07-09 13:25:00 -0600, cwillu:
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Stephane Chazelas
stephane_chaze...@yahoo.fr wrote:
2011-07-08 11:06:08 -0400, Chris Mason:
[...]
I would do two things. First, I'd turn off
You don't understood me. Ofc the developer need bug reports and all that
stuff. But it's the way youre doing it. Imho a lot of your mails sounds
like the only goal of them are to punish btrfs.
Maybe I'm the only one who feels this way, then I'm sorry. I'll be quite
about this topic now. I've
Hallo, Felix,
Du meintest am 10.07.11:
I'll be quiet about this topic now. I've to admit that I was a little
bit drunk yesterday. Sorry again!
Don't drink and write!
Viele Gruesse!
Helmut
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a message to
Well, the mail still says the truth :)
On 7/10/11 11:57 AM, Helmut Hullen wrote:
Hallo, Felix,
Du meintest am 10.07.11:
I'll be quiet about this topic now. I've to admit that I was a little
bit drunk yesterday. Sorry again!
Don't drink and write!
Viele Gruesse!
Helmut
--
To unsubscribe
Yes, this is over three months after the initial posting, but since
nobody else has looked at it yet, and the patch is in my integration
stack...
I've not reviewed the whole thing -- just the scrub start code so
far. I've removed the bits I've not checked from the file below.
On Wed, Mar
2011-07-10 08:44:34 -0400, Chris Mason:
[...]
Great, we're on the right track. Does it trigger with mount -o compress
instead of mount -o compress_force?
[...]
It does trigger. I get that same invalid opcode.
BTW, I tried with CONFIG_SLUB and slub_debug and no more useful
information than
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 06:53:09PM +0200, Jan Schmidt wrote:
- scrub commands added
- open_file_or_dir no longer static (needed by scrub.c)
Signed-off-by: Jan Schmidt list.bt...@jan-o-sch.net
---
Makefile |4 ++--
btrfs.c | 18 +-
btrfs_cmds.c |3 ++-
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Chris Samuel ch...@csamuel.org wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jul 2011 05:45:17 AM Calvin Walton wrote:
The discard option is not currently automatically enabled; I think
there may have been some performance issues in certain cases with
drives that have slow trim
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 3:58 AM, Leonidas Spyropoulos
artafi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Chris Samuel ch...@csamuel.org wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jul 2011 05:45:17 AM Calvin Walton wrote:
This LWN article from 2009 explains why it can be problematic
(especially on SATA drives
So any clues for the intel 320 series? I think it doesn't use compression.
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 10:59 PM, Fajar A. Nugraha l...@fajar.net wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 3:58 AM, Leonidas Spyropoulos
artafi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Chris Samuel ch...@csamuel.org
Documentation says that btrfs-image zeros data. Feature request is for
disabling this. btrfs-image could be used to copy filesystem to
another drive (for example with snapshots, when copying it file by
file would take much longer time or acctualy was not possible
(snapshots)). btrfs-image in turn
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/01/2011 04:39 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
Hey Chris,
Since I'm going on vacation next week I wanted to get everything ready for
you
in case you get bored with fsck and want to put together a 3.1 tree :). If
you
can
I've been monitoring the lists for a while now but didn't see this
problem mentioned in particular: I've got a fairly standard desktop
system at home, 700gb WD drive, nothing special, with 2 btrfs
filesystems and some snapshots. The system runs for days, and I've
noticed unusual disk activity the
Had a thunderstorm a week or so ago that ended up taking out one of my machines
immediately after a Fedora 14 to 15 upgrade. This particular
machine has two btrfs's on it. An Intel SSD which holds /, and a HD that holds
/home and a few other partitions.
I was having issues mounting the btrfs
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 07:59:54 AM Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
Sandforce-based SSDs have their own way of reducing writes
(e.g. by using internal compression), so you don't have to
do anything special
Not just compression, but also block level de-duplication too
(i.e. potentially removing the
20 matches
Mail list logo
