Re: [RFC] New attempt to a better "btrfs fi df"

2012-10-27 Thread Chris Murphy
On Oct 27, 2012, at 1:55 PM, Michael Kjörling wrote: > Data: RAID 0 System: RAID 1 Unused > /dev/vdb 307.25 MB-2.23 GB > /dev/vdc 307.25 MB 8 MB2.69 GB > /dev/vdd 307.25 MB 8 MB2.24 GB > ===

Re: [RFC] New attempt to a better "btrfs fi df"

2012-10-27 Thread Michael Kjörling
On 27 Oct 2012 23:38 +0100, from h...@carfax.org.uk (Hugo Mills): >>>Data: RAID 0 System: RAID 1 Unused >>> /dev/vdb 307.25 MB-2.23 GB >>> /dev/vdc 307.25 MB 8 MB2.69 GB >>> /dev/vdd 307.25 MB 8 MB2.24 GB >>

Re: [RFC] New attempt to a better "btrfs fi df"

2012-10-27 Thread Hugo Mills
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 12:30:44AM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > Am Samstag, 27. Oktober 2012 schrieb Michael Kjörling: > > On 27 Oct 2012 18:43 +0200, from mar...@lichtvoll.de (Martin > Steigerwald): > > > Possibly this could be done tabular as well, like: > > > > > >

Re: [RFC] New attempt to a better "btrfs fi df"

2012-10-27 Thread Martin Steigerwald
Am Samstag, 27. Oktober 2012 schrieb Michael Kjörling: > On 27 Oct 2012 18:43 +0200, from mar...@lichtvoll.de (Martin Steigerwald): > > Possibly this could be done tabular as well, like: > > > > vdb vdc vdd > > > > Data, RAID 0 307,25MB307,25

Re: How does btrfs behave on checksum mismatch?

2012-10-27 Thread Michael Kjörling
On 27 Oct 2012 23:02 +0100, from h...@carfax.org.uk (Hugo Mills): >> I came across the tidbit that ZFS has a contract guarantee that the >> data read back will either be correct (the checksum computed over the >> data read from the disk matches the checksum stored on disk), or you >> get an I/O err

Re: How does btrfs behave on checksum mismatch?

2012-10-27 Thread Hugo Mills
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 09:56:45PM +, Michael Kjörling wrote: > I came across the tidbit that ZFS has a contract guarantee that the > data read back will either be correct (the checksum computed over the > data read from the disk matches the checksum stored on disk), or you > get an I/O error.

Re: [RFC] New attempt to a better "btrfs fi df"

2012-10-27 Thread Michael Kjörling
On 27 Oct 2012 18:43 +0200, from mar...@lichtvoll.de (Martin Steigerwald): > Possibly this could be done tabular as well, like: > > vdb vdc vdd > Data, RAID 0 307,25MB307,25MB307,25MB > … > System,RAID1 - 8MB

Re: device delete, error removing device

2012-10-27 Thread Chris Murphy
3.6.3-3.fc18.x86_64.debug btrfs-progs-0.20.rc1.20121017git91d9eec-1.fc18.x86_64 I'm getting a very different result with this kernel compared to 3.6.2, when I do the same thing. I fill the btrfs volume to 97% full again, no errors. Add a device of the *same* size, and then device delete. In thi

Re: Naming of (bootable) subvolumes

2012-10-27 Thread Chris Murphy
On Oct 26, 2012, at 9:03 PM, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote: > > So back to the original question, I'd suggest NOT to use either > send/receive or set-default. Instead, setup multiple boot environment > (e.g. old version, current version) and let user choose which one to > boot using a menu. Is it pos

Re: [RFC] New attempt to a better "btrfs fi df"

2012-10-27 Thread Martin Steigerwald
Am Donnerstag, 25. Oktober 2012 schrieb Goffredo Baroncelli: > Hi all, > > this is a new attempt to improve the output of the command "btrfs fi > df". > > The previous attempt received a good reception. However there was no a > general consensus about the wording. > > Moreover I still didn't und

Re: Naming of subvolumes

2012-10-27 Thread Chris Murphy
On Oct 26, 2012, at 7:58 PM, cwillu wrote: > > I'd argue that everything should be absolute references to subvolumes > (/@home, /@, etc), and neither set-default nor subvolume id's should > be touched. grub's core.img prefix is relative to the current default subvolume. I'm unaware of an abs

Re: [RFC] New attempt to a better "btrfs fi df"

2012-10-27 Thread Chris Murphy
On Oct 25, 2012, at 9:36 PM, cwillu wrote: > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: >> So what's the intended distinction between 'fi df' and 'fi show'? Because >> for months using btrfs I'd constantly be confused which command was going to >> show me what information I wanted,

[PATCH] Btrfs: Remove the invalid shrink size check up from btrfs_shrink_dev()

2012-10-27 Thread Jeff Liu
Remove an invalid size check up from btrfs_shrink_dev(). The new size should not larger than the device->total_bytes as it was already verified before coming to here(i.e. new_size < old_size). Remove invalid check up for btrfs_shrink_dev(). Signed-off-by: Jie Liu --- fs/btrfs/ioctl.c |2

[PATCH 2/2] Btrfs: make snapshot-aware defrag as a mount option

2012-10-27 Thread Liu Bo
This feature works on our crucial write endio path, so if we've got lots of fragments to process, it will be kind of a disaster to the performance, so I make such a change. One can benifit from it while mounting with '-o snap_aware_defrag'. Signed-off-by: Liu Bo --- fs/btrfs/ctree.h |1 + f

[PATCH 1/2 v4] Btrfs: snapshot-aware defrag

2012-10-27 Thread Liu Bo
This comes from one of btrfs's project ideas, As we defragment files, we break any sharing from other snapshots. The balancing code will preserve the sharing, and defrag needs to grow this as well. Now we're able to fill the blank with this patch, in which we make full use of backref walking stuff