On 07/05/12 20:06, Boyd Waters wrote:
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
Hi,
I have a quite unreliable SSD here which develops some bad blocks from
time to time which result in read-errors.
Once the block is written to again, its remapped internally and
everything is fine again for that block.
Would it be possible to create 2 btrfs partitions on that drive and
use it
On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 09:13 (+0200), Clemens Eisserer wrote:
Would it be possible to create 2 btrfs partitions on that drive and
use it in RAID1 - with btrfs silently repairing read-errors when they
occur?
Would it require special settings, to not fallback to read-only mode
when a
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Clemens Eisserer linuxhi...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I have a quite unreliable SSD here which develops some bad blocks from
time to time which result in read-errors.
Once the block is written to again, its remapped internally and
everything is fine again for that
Hallo, Martin,
Du meintest am 08.05.12:
No - since some years I use a kind of outsourced backup. A copy of
all data is on a bundle of disks somewhere in the neighbourhood.
As mentionend: the data isn't business critical, it's just nice to
have. It's not worth something like raid1 or so
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Helmut Hullen hul...@t-online.de wrote:
And you can use three BTRFS filesystems the same way as three Ext4
filesystems if you prefer such a setup if the time spent for
restoring the backup does not make up the cost for one additional
disk for you.
But where's
According to section 'Find open-coded helpers or macros' at
https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Cleanup_ideas, here
in the patch we use ALIGN macro to do the alignment.
Signed-off-by: Yuanhan Liu yuanhan@linux.intel.com
---
fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c |4 ++--
fs/btrfs/extent_io.c |
Delayed allocation ref mutexes are taken [1] inside
btrfs_commit_transaction. A later call fails and jumps to the
cleanup_transaction label (transaction.c:1501) with these mutexes
still held causing deadlock [2] when they are reacquired.
Either we can introduce an earlier label
Hallo, Fajar,
Du meintest am 08.05.12:
And you can use three BTRFS filesystems the same way as three Ext4
filesystems if you prefer such a setup if the time spent for
restoring the backup does not make up the cost for one additional
disk for you.
But where's the gain? If a disk fails I
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 18:41:39 +0200, David Sterba wrote:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 06:55:13PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
But I found you add a trylock for -s_umount in cleaner_kthread(), this
method
can fix the deadlock problem, I think. It may be introduced by the other
patch,
could you send
Hi Helmut,
But where's the gain? If a disk fails I have a lot of tools for
repairing an ext2/3/4 system.
Nope, when a disk in your ext4 raid0 array fails, you are just as doomed.
But when I use ext2/3/4 I neither need RAID0 nor do I need LVM.
You can use btrfs, without using its raid
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 1:36 AM, Fajar A. Nugraha l...@fajar.net wrote:
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Clemens Eisserer linuxhi...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I have a quite unreliable SSD here which develops some bad blocks from
time to time which result in read-errors.
Once the block is written
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
Hallo, Clemens,
Du meintest am 08.05.12:
But where's the gain? If a disk fails I have a lot of tools for
repairing an ext2/3/4 system.
Nope, when a disk in your ext4 raid0 array fails, you are just as
doomed.
Why should I use RAID0 with a bundle of ext2/3/4? Mounting on/in the
directory
On 5/8/12 3:13 PM, Helmut Hullen wrote:
Hallo, Clemens,
Du meintest am 08.05.12:
But where's the gain? If a disk fails I have a lot of tools for
repairing an ext2/3/4 system.
Nope, when a disk in your ext4 raid0 array fails, you are just as
doomed.
Why should I use RAID0 with a bundle of
On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 03:44:12PM +0200, Felix Blanke wrote:
On 5/8/12 3:13 PM, Helmut Hullen wrote:
Hallo, Clemens,
Du meintest am 08.05.12:
But where's the gain? If a disk fails I have a lot of tools for
repairing an ext2/3/4 system.
Nope, when a disk in your ext4 raid0 array fails,
On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 06:38:01PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
I think this method can not fix the problem safely because if the other
background threads(not the cleaner) call shrink_delalloc(), the problem
can still occur.
And it does not indeed fix the problem completely, I found xfstests/269
On 07/05/12 12:05, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
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
On 08/05/12 13:31, Chris Mason wrote:
[...]
A few people have already mentioned how btrfs will pack these small
files into metadata blocks. If you're running btrfs on a single disk,
[...]
But the cost is increased CPU usage. Btrfs hits memmove and memcpy
pretty hard when you're using
Hallo, Felix,
Du meintest am 08.05.12:
Why should I use RAID0 with a bundle of ext2/3/4? Mounting on/in the
directory tree does the job.
Nobody told you that you should do it. What EVERYBODY here is telling
you: The problem you have right now would be the same damn problem,
no matter what
On 5/8/12 6:53 PM, Helmut Hullen wrote:
Hallo, Felix,
Du meintest am 08.05.12:
Why should I use RAID0 with a bundle of ext2/3/4? Mounting on/in the
directory tree does the job.
Nobody told you that you should do it. What EVERYBODY here is telling
you: The problem you have right now would
Hallo, Felix,
Du meintest am 08.05.12:
As I've written many times: I want a system for my video collection
which allows
adding a bigger disk
deleting/removing a smaller disk
with simple commands.
btrfs seems to be able to do that (and I have tested this job many
On 5/8/12 8:29 PM, Helmut Hullen wrote:
Hallo, Felix,
Du meintest am 08.05.12:
As I've written many times: I want a system for my video collection
which allows
adding a bigger disk
deleting/removing a smaller disk
with simple commands.
btrfs seems to be able to do that
On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 08:41:47PM +0200, Felix Blanke wrote:
As I've written some hours ago: I run
btrfs fi balance ...
after adding and after deleting a disk. Maybe it's not necessary.
Especially it seems not to be necessary after adding a disk.
What are the steps you're
Hallo, Felix,
Du meintest am 08.05.12:
adding a bigger disk
deleting/removing a smaller disk
with simple commands.
[...]
Is it really possible to remove a disk from btrfs (created with -d
single) without losing the data on that disk?
When the system is configured
On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 09:34:00PM +0200, Helmut Hullen wrote:
Hallo, Felix,
Du meintest am 08.05.12:
adding a bigger disk
deleting/removing a smaller disk
with simple commands.
[...]
Is it really possible to remove a disk from btrfs (created with -d
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 08.05.12:
Otherwise if you remove a disk from a raid0 (doesn't matter if you
have 2 or 5 or x disks in the fs, btrfs should stripe above all
disks) your fs should be broken.
Not with btrfs ... there it works even with
mkfs.btrfs -m raid1 -d raid0 ...
On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 05:51:05PM +0100, Martin wrote:
On 08/05/12 13:31, Chris Mason wrote:
[...]
A few people have already mentioned how btrfs will pack these small
files into metadata blocks. If you're running btrfs on a single disk,
[...]
But the cost is increased CPU usage.
On 08 May 2012 22:19:00 +0200
hul...@t-online.de (Helmut Hullen) wrote:
What I still hope (may be it's impossible): when 1 disk/partition fails,
then the contents of the other disks is somehow restorable. And not
irreproducable.
You should look for file/directory-level tree merging, e.g.
On Tuesday 08 of May 2012 12:00:00 Helmut Hullen wrote:
Hallo, Fajar,
Du meintest am 08.05.12:
And you can use three BTRFS filesystems the same way as three Ext4
filesystems if you prefer such a setup if the time spent for
restoring the backup does not make up the cost for one additional
On Tuesday 08 of May 2012 04:45:51 cwillu wrote:
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 1:36 AM, Fajar A. Nugraha l...@fajar.net wrote:
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Clemens Eisserer linuxhi...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
I have a quite unreliable SSD here which develops some bad blocks from
time to time
Hi Jan, comments inline as usual!
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 07:59:36PM +0200, Jan Schmidt wrote:
@@ -858,62 +859,75 @@ static int inode_ref_info(u64 inum, u64 ioff, struct
btrfs_root *fs_root,
}
/*
- * this iterates to turn a btrfs_inode_ref into a full filesystem path.
elements
On 08/05/12 17:13, Clemens Eisserer wrote:
Would it be possible to create 2 btrfs partitions on that drive and
use it in RAID1 - with btrfs silently repairing read-errors when they
occur?
You can, I tried that in 2009:
On 05/08/2012 04:56 PM, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
Delayed allocation ref mutexes are taken [1] inside
btrfs_commit_transaction. A later call fails and jumps to the
cleanup_transaction label (transaction.c:1501) with these mutexes
still held causing deadlock [2] when they are reacquired.
On Tue, 8 May 2012 17:33:26 +0200, David Sterba wrote:
On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 06:38:01PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
I think this method can not fix the problem safely because if the other
background threads(not the cleaner) call shrink_delalloc(), the problem
can still occur.
And it does not
On tue, 8 May 2012 16:56:27 +0800, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
Delayed allocation ref mutexes are taken [1] inside
btrfs_commit_transaction. A later call fails and jumps to the
cleanup_transaction label (transaction.c:1501) with these mutexes
still held causing deadlock [2] when they are
I find the mailing list too busy. Is there an announce mailing list or
some other simple way to get notified when a stable is released?
--
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
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 10:45 PM, spiralofhope spiralofh...@lavabit.com wrote:
I find the mailing list too busy. Is there an announce mailing list or
some other simple way to get notified when a stable is released?
That'll only ever be in a new kernel release; there isn't a separate
release
38 matches
Mail list logo
