On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 01:38:51PM +0800, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
Fix BTRFS messages to print a newline where there should be one.
Please prefix the patch subject line with 'btrfs: '
--- a/fs/btrfs/super.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/super.c
@@ -1501,7 +1501,7 @@ static int btrfs_interface_init(void)
Hi,
I need some help in designing a storage structure for 1 billion of small files
(512 Bytes), and I was wondering how btrfs will fit in this scenario. Keep in
mind that I never worked with btrfs - I just read some documentation and
browsed this mailing list - so forgive me if my questions
On Monday 07 of May 2012 11:28:13 Alessio Focardi wrote:
Hi,
I need some help in designing a storage structure for 1 billion of small
files (512 Bytes), and I was wondering how btrfs will fit in this
scenario. Keep in mind that I never worked with btrfs - I just read some
documentation and
Use a directory hierarchy. Even if the filesystem handles a flat structure
effectively, userspace programs will choke on tens of thousands of files in a
single directory. For example 'ls' will try to lexically sort its output (very
slowly) unless given the command-line option not to do so.
Hallo,
never change a running system ...
For some months I run btrfs unter kernel 3.2.5 and 3.2.9, without
problems.
Yesterday I compiled kernel 3.3.4, and this morning I started the
machine with this kernel. There may be some ugly problems.
Copying something into the btrfs directory
On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 11:28:13AM +0200, Alessio Focardi wrote:
Hi,
I need some help in designing a storage structure for 1 billion of small
files (512 Bytes), and I was wondering how btrfs will fit in this scenario.
Keep in mind that I never worked with btrfs - I just read some
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Helmut Hullen hul...@t-online.de wrote:
For some months I run btrfs unter kernel 3.2.5 and 3.2.9, without
problems.
Yesterday I compiled kernel 3.3.4, and this morning I started the
machine with this kernel. There may be some ugly problems.
Data, RAID0:
On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 12:46:00PM +0200, Helmut Hullen wrote:
Hallo,
never change a running system ...
For some months I run btrfs unter kernel 3.2.5 and 3.2.9, without
problems.
Yesterday I compiled kernel 3.3.4, and this morning I started the
machine with this kernel. There may
Il 07/05/2012 11:28, Alessio Focardi ha scritto:
Hi,
I need some help in designing a storage structure for 1 billion of small files
(512 Bytes), and I was wondering how btrfs will fit in this scenario. Keep in
mind that I never worked with btrfs - I just read some documentation and browsed
This is a lot more compact (as you can have several files' data in a
single block), but by default will write two copies of each file,
even
on a single disk.
Great, no (or less) space wasted, then! I will have a filesystem that's
composed mostly of metadata blocks, if I understand correctly.
On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 01:15:26PM +0200, Alessio Focardi wrote:
This is a lot more compact (as you can have several files' data in a
single block), but by default will write two copies of each file,
even
on a single disk.
Great, no (or less) space wasted, then!
Less space wasted --
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 07.05.12:
Yesterday I compiled kernel 3.3.4, and this morning I started the
machine with this kernel. There may be some ugly problems.
Copying something into the btrfs directory worked well for some
files, and then I got error messages (I've not copied them,
Hallo, Fajar,
Du meintest am 07.05.12:
For some months I run btrfs unter kernel 3.2.5 and 3.2.9, without
problems.
Yesterday I compiled kernel 3.3.4, and this morning I started the
machine with this kernel. There may be some ugly problems.
Data, RAID0: total=5.29TB, used=4.29TB
Raid0?
Am Mon, 7 May 2012 12:39:28 +0100
schrieb Hugo Mills h...@carfax.org.uk:
On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 01:15:26PM +0200, Alessio Focardi wrote:
...
That's a very clever suggestion, I'm preparing a test server right
now: going to use the -m single option. Any other suggestion
regarding format
Fix various messages to include newline and module prefix.
Signed-off-by: Daniel J Blueman dan...@quora.org
---
fs/btrfs/super.c |8
fs/btrfs/volumes.c |6 +++---
fs/btrfs/zlib.c|8
3 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git
On 05/07/2012 06:46 PM, Helmut Hullen wrote:
btrfs: error reading free space cache
BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0001
IP: [c1295c36] io_ctl_drop_pages+0x26/0x50
*pdpt = 29712001 *pde =
Oops: 0002 [#1]
Could you please try this and
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 07.05.12:
=== boot messages, kernel related ==
[boot with kernel 3.3.4]
May 7 06:55:26 Arktur kernel: ata5: exception Emask 0x10 SAct 0x0
SErr 0x1 action 0xe frozen
May 7 06:55:26 Arktur kernel: ata5: SError: { PHYRdyChg }
May
On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 03:34:00PM +0200, Helmut Hullen wrote:
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 07.05.12:
=== boot messages, kernel related ==
[boot with kernel 3.3.4]
May 7 06:55:26 Arktur kernel: ata5: exception Emask 0x10 SAct 0x0
SErr 0x1 action 0xe
On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 11:28:13AM +0200, Alessio Focardi wrote:
I tough about compression, but is not clear to me the compression is
handled at the file level or at the block level.
I don't recommend using compression for your expected file size range.
Unless the files are highly compressible
Hi,
the time of temporary wiki hosted at btrfs.ipv5.de is over, the content has
been migrated back to official site at
http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org
(ipv5.de wiki is set to redirect there).
cheers,
david
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 07.05.12:
It's dead - R.I.P.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. I don't think we can point the
finger at btrfs here.
a) you know what to do with the bearer?
b) I like such errors - completely independent, but simultaneously.
It looks like you've lost
On 5/7/12 6:36 PM, Helmut Hullen wrote:
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 07.05.12:
It's dead - R.I.P.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. I don't think we can point the
finger at btrfs here.
a) you know what to do with the bearer?
b) I like such errors - completely independent, but
Hallo, Felix,
Du meintest am 07.05.12:
I'm just going back to ext4 - then one broken disk doesn't disturb
the contents of the other disks.
?! If you use raid0 one broken disk will always disturb the contents
of the other disks, that is what raid0 does, no matter what
filesystem you use.
On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 07:52:00PM +0200, Helmut Hullen wrote:
Hallo, Felix,
Du meintest am 07.05.12:
I'm just going back to ext4 - then one broken disk doesn't disturb
the contents of the other disks.
?! If you use raid0 one broken disk will always disturb the contents
of the
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 07.05.12:
With a file system like ext2/3/4 I can work with several directories
which are mounted together, but (as said before) one broken disk
doesn't disturb the others.
mkfs.btrfs -m raid1 -d single should give you that.
What's the difference to
Not what I've been seeing at all, but we've been working a lot in this area
recently. Please retest with btrfs-next. Thanks,
Hi,
I tested again with kernel 3.3.4 ; I wondered if latest btrfs code is
present in this release or not.
Results are very similar with 3.3.4 compared to 3.3.0
On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 08:25:00PM +0200, Helmut Hullen wrote:
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 07.05.12:
With a file system like ext2/3/4 I can work with several directories
which are mounted together, but (as said before) one broken disk
doesn't disturb the others.
mkfs.btrfs -m
Am Sonntag, 6. Mai 2012 schrieb Ilya Dryomov:
On Sun, May 06, 2012 at 01:19:38PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
Am Freitag, 4. Mai 2012 schrieb Martin Steigerwald:
Am Freitag, 4. Mai 2012 schrieb Martin Steigerwald:
Hi!
merkaba:~ btrfs balance start -m /
ERROR: error
On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 08:42:45PM +0200, Olivier Doucet wrote:
Not what I've been seeing at all, but we've been working a lot in this area
recently. Please retest with btrfs-next. Thanks,
Hi,
I tested again with kernel 3.3.4 ; I wondered if latest btrfs code is
present in this
On 05/07/2012 10:52 AM, Helmut Hullen wrote:
Hallo, Felix,
Du meintest am 07.05.12:
I'm just going back to ext4 - then one broken disk doesn't disturb
the contents of the other disks.
?! If you use raid0 one broken disk will always disturb the contents
of the other disks, that is what
Hallo, Daniel,
Du meintest am 07.05.12:
Yes - I know. But btrfs promises that I can add bigger disks and
delete smaller disks on the fly. For something like a video
collection which will grow on and on an interesting feature. And
such a (big) collection does need a gradfather-father-son
On 05/07/2012 01:21 PM, Helmut Hullen wrote:
Hallo, Daniel,
Du meintest am 07.05.12:
Yes - I know. But btrfs promises that I can add bigger disks and
delete smaller disks on the fly. For something like a video
collection which will grow on and on an interesting feature. And
such a (big)
Hallo, Daniel,
Du meintest am 07.05.12:
mkfs.btrfs -m raid1 -d raid0
with 3 disks gives me a cluster which looks like 1 disk/partition/
directory.
If one disk fails nothing is usable.
How is that different from putting ext on top of a raid0?
Classic raid0 doesn't allow
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Helmut Hullen hul...@t-online.de wrote:
Hallo, Daniel,
Du meintest am 07.05.12:
mkfs.btrfs -m raid1 -d raid0
with 3 disks gives me a cluster which looks like 1 disk/partition/
directory.
If one disk fails nothing is usable.
How is that different from
Am Montag, 7. Mai 2012 schrieb Helmut Hullen:
If you want to survive losing a single disk without the (absolute)
fear of the whole filesystem breaking you have to have some sort of
redundancy either by separating filesystems or using some version of
raid other than raid0.
No - since
Hi All,
I'm experiencing some odd-seeming behaviour with btrfs on Ubuntu 12.04, using
the Ubuntu x86-64 generic 3.2.0-24 kernel and btrfs-tools
0.19+20120328-1~precise1 (backported from the current Debian version using
Ubuntu's backportpackage). When I snapshot a subvolume on some of my
36 matches
Mail list logo
