On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 10:22 AM, H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote:
a. Make a snapshot of the current root;
b. Mount said snapshot;
c. Install the new distro on the snapshot;
d. Change the bootloader configuration *inside* the snapshot to point
to the snapshot as the root;
e. Install
Hi,
on machine-a where btrfs is not root inspect-internal works fine.
# filefrag -v /btrfs/tf1
Filesystem type is: 9123683e
File size of /btrfs/tf1 is 409600 (100 blocks, blocksize 4096)
ext logical physical expected length flags
0 0 3101 13
1
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 04:35:59PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 06/19/2012 07:22 AM, Calvin Walton wrote:
All subvolumes are accessible from the volume mounted when you use -o
subvolid=0. (Note that 0 is not the real ID of the root volume, it's
just a shortcut for mounting it.)
Hello,
This is the second attempt to bring in cross subvolume reflinks into btrfs.
The first attempt was NAKed due to missing vfs mount checks and a clear
description of what btrfs subvolumes are and probably also why cross
subvolume reflinks are ok in the case of btrfs. This version of the
From: David Sterba dste...@suse.cz
Lift the EXDEV condition and allow different root trees for files being
cloned, then pass source inode's root when searching for extents.
Cloning is not allowed to cross vfsmounts, ie. when two subvolumes from
one filesystem are mounted separately.
HI all,
Messaggio originale
Da: chris.ma...@fusionio.com
Data: 20/06/2012 1.49
A: H. Peter Anvinh...@zytor.com
Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.orglinux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Ogg: Re: Subvolumes and /proc/self/mountinfo
b. Are there better ways (walking the tree using
HI all,
Messaggio originale
Da: h...@zytor.com
Data: 20/06/2012 5.22
A: cwillucwi...@cwillu.com
Cc: hel...@hullen.de, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Ogg: Re: Subvolumes and /proc/self/mountinfo
The concept of what is the root and what is the path is
straightforward for lesser filesystems:
Hi All,
Messaggio originale
Da: l...@fajar.net
Data: 20/06/2012 8.31
A: H. Peter Anvinh...@zytor.com
Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Ogg: Re: Subvolumes and /proc/self/mountinfo
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 10:22 AM, H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote:
a. Make a snapshot of the current
Hello,
Today is my last day at Red Hat, I will be joining Chris at Fusion IO. I'm
sending this because a lot of people have been cc'ing me on patches recently to
include them in btrfs-next, which is great, thank you! But tomorrow all of my
email will be forwarded to my boss and I'd rather not
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 08:59:15AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
Hello,
Today is my last day at Red Hat, I will be joining Chris at Fusion IO.
Blimey. It's all change round here, isn't it? Congratulations.
Hugo.
--
=== Hugo Mills: hugo@... carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk ===
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 06:03:49PM -0600, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 06/19/2012 04:49 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 06:39:31PM -0600, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
I'm trying to figure out an algorithm from taking an arbitrary mounted
btrfs directory and break it down into:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 06:00:11PM -0600, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 06/19/2012 04:51 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
At mount time, we go through and verify the path names still belong to
the filesystem you thought they belonged to. The bdev is locked during
the verification, so it won't be able
On 06/20/2012 06:34 AM, Chris Mason wrote:
I want an algorithm, it doesn't have an API per se. I would really like
to avoid relying on blkid and udev for this, though... that is pretty
much a nonstarter.
If the answer is to walk the tree then I'm fine with that.
Ok, fair enough.
Yet another boot loader support request.
Right now btrfs' definition of RAID-1 with more than two devices is a
bit unorthodox: it stores on any two drives. True RAID-1 would
instead store N copies on each of N devices, the same way an actual
RAID-1 would operate with an arbitrary number of
On 06/20/2012 05:37 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 06/20/2012 05:02 AM, Goffredo Baroncelli kreij...@libero.it wrote:
If I swap (via a rename) __active and __rollback, in the next boot my system
uses a good copy of the root filesystem. This is a simple way to swap
two subvolumes, without
On 06/20/2012 03:37 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 06:00:11PM -0600, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 06/19/2012 04:51 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
At mount time, we go through and verify the path names still belong to
the filesystem you thought they belonged to. The bdev is locked during
Hi Alexander,
On 06/20/2012 12:35 PM, Alexander Block wrote:
The patch also does proper vfs mount checks, so cross mount
point reflinks are not possible with this patch. It only allows cross
reflinks between two subvolumes which are in the same mount point.
Thanks for working on that. What
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Goffredo Baroncelli kreij...@libero.it wrote:
Hi Alexander,
On 06/20/2012 12:35 PM, Alexander Block wrote:
The patch also does proper vfs mount checks, so cross mount
point reflinks are not possible with this patch. It only allows cross
reflinks between two
On 06/20/2012 09:34 AM, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
At the first I tough that having the /boot separate could be a good
thing. Unfortunately /boot contains both the bootloader code and the
kernel image. The kernel image should be in sync with the contents of
/lib/modules/
This is the
HI,
On 06/20/2012 07:41 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 06/20/2012 09:34 AM, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
At the first I tough that having the /boot separate could be a good
thing. Unfortunately /boot contains both the bootloader code and the
kernel image. The kernel image should be in sync with
On Wed, 2012-06-20 at 19:27 +0200, Alexander Block wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Goffredo Baroncelli kreij...@libero.it
wrote:
Hi Alexander,
On 06/20/2012 12:35 PM, Alexander Block wrote:
The patch also does proper vfs mount checks, so cross mount
point reflinks are not
On 06/20/2012 08:07 PM, Calvin Walton wrote:
On Wed, 2012-06-20 at 19:27 +0200, Alexander Block wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Goffredo Baroncelli kreij...@libero.it
wrote:
Hi Alexander,
On 06/20/2012 12:35 PM, Alexander Block wrote:
The patch also does proper vfs mount checks, so
Hallo, Goffredo,
Du meintest am 20.06.12:
[...]
Am not saying that we *should* move the kernel away from /boot. I am
only saying that having the kernel near /lib/modules *has* some
advantages.
Few year ago there are some gains to have a separate /boot (ah, the
time when the bios were
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Goffredo Baroncelli kreij...@libero.it wrote:
Yes please, could someone explain the reason behind this decision ? May
be there are valid reasons, I am asking only to know which ones ?
The reason is that at the moment no user visible operations span mount
On 06/20/2012 10:05 PM, Alexander Block wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Goffredo Baroncelli kreij...@libero.it
wrote:
Yes please, could someone explain the reason behind this decision ? May
be there are valid reasons, I am asking only to know which ones ?
The reason is that at the
On 06/20/2012 09:15 PM, Helmut Hullen wrote:
Hallo, Goffredo,
Hi Helmut,
Du meintest am 20.06.12:
[...]
Am not saying that we *should* move the kernel away from /boot. I am
only saying that having the kernel near /lib/modules *has* some
advantages.
Few year ago there are some gains
Most of io workers in btrfs don't take into account amount
of disks they deal with:
fs/btrfs/disk-io.c:fs_info-thread_pool_size = min_t(unsigned long,
num_online_cpus() + 2, 8);
It might not be a problem for 'write-only' workloads,
but it's a serious problem for read/write ones.
On 06/20/2012 11:06 AM, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
Am not saying that we *should* move the kernel away from /boot. I am
only saying that having the kernel near /lib/modules *has* some advantages.
Few year ago there are some gains to have a separate /boot (ah, the time
when the bios were
On 06/19/2012 11:31 PM, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
IMHO a more elegant solution would be similar to what
(open)solaris/indiana does: make the boot parts (bootloader,
configuration) as a separate area, separate from root snapshots. In
solaris case IIRC this is will br /rpool/grub.
It is both
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:27 PM, H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote:
Yet another boot loader support request.
Right now btrfs' definition of RAID-1 with more than two devices is a
bit unorthodox: it stores on any two drives. True RAID-1 would
instead store N copies on each of N devices,
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 06:35:30PM -0600, Marios Titas wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:27 PM, H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote:
Yet another boot loader support request.
Right now btrfs' definition of RAID-1 with more than two devices is a
bit unorthodox: it stores on any two drives.
Could you have a mode, though, where M = N at all times, so a user doesn't end
up adding a new drive and get a nasty surprise?
Chris Mason chris.ma...@fusionio.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 06:35:30PM -0600, Marios Titas wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:27 PM, H. Peter Anvin
On tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:58:09 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
Miao pointed out there's a problem with mixing dio writes and buffered
reads. If the read happens between us invalidating the page range and
actually locking the extent we can bring in pages into page cache. Then
once the write finishes
On 06/20/2012 11:49 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 06/20/2012 11:06 AM, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
Am not saying that we *should* move the kernel away from /boot. I am
only saying that having the kernel near /lib/modules *has* some advantages.
Few year ago there are some gains to have a
34 matches
Mail list logo
