On 29 Oct 2012 23:21 +0100, from kreij...@gmail.com (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.
In general, I like it. And
Hi all,
I am testing my btrfs root partition with max_inline=0, and 64k leaf size for
weeks and it seems that it is fine.
AFAIK btrfs inline small files into metadata by default, I am curious why?
If there is only a few small files, then there will be neither effect nor
benefit at all
If
Hi all,
I try to defrag my btrfs root partition (run by root privilege)
find / -type f -o -type d -print0 | xargs --null --no-run-if-empty btrfs
filesystem defragment -t $((32*1024*1024))
1. This kind of error messages is prompted:
failed to open /bin/bash
open:: Text file busy
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 5:47 AM, ching lschin...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
I try to defrag my btrfs root partition (run by root privilege)
find / -type f -o -type d -print0 | xargs --null --no-run-if-empty btrfs
filesystem defragment -t $((32*1024*1024))
1. This kind of error messages is
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 6:04 AM, ching lschin...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
I am testing my btrfs root partition with max_inline=0, and 64k leaf size
for weeks and it seems that it is fine.
AFAIK btrfs inline small files into metadata by default, I am curious why?
If there is only a few
Hi ching!
Am 30.10.2012 12:04, schrieb ching:
Hi all,
I am testing my btrfs root partition with max_inline=0, and 64k leaf size for
weeks and it seems that it is fine.
AFAIK btrfs inline small files into metadata by default, I am curious why?
If there is only a few small files, then there
If there is a lot of small files, then the size of metadata will be
undesirable due to deduplication
Yes, that is a fact, but if that really matters depends on the use-case
(e.g., the small files to large files ratio, ...). But as btrfs is designed
explicitly as a general purpose file
Hi ching!
Am 30.10.2012 12:04, schrieb ching:
Hi all,
I am testing my btrfs root partition with max_inline=0, and 64k leaf size for
weeks and it seems that it is fine.
AFAIK btrfs inline small files into metadata by default, I am curious why?
If there is only a few small files, then there
Hi,
How could one find out if 2 files share any extents on a btrfs file system?
A more generic variation of the above: How to list files on the same
file system/subvolume sharing content?
Thanks,
Gábor
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 04:20:05PM +0100, Gábor Nyers wrote:
Hi,
How could one find out if 2 files share any extents on a btrfs file system?
A more generic variation of the above: How to list files on the same
file system/subvolume sharing content?
You have direct (read-only) access to
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:48:02AM -0700, Marc MERLIN wrote:
Then, I figured, I'd try mounting all the active snapshots one per one,
and they worked:
After that, I was able to mount the root (volid 0) without a crash and
my filesystem looks fine again.
Ok, I was wrong.
What happened is that
On Tue, October 30, 2012 at 16:39 (+0100), Hugo Mills wrote:
It should be possible to walk through the
extents of a given file, and (I think) follow back-refs from the
extent back to the other files that share it.
You wish :-) Backrefs are not made to walk them while the file system is online.
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 07:04:59PM +0800, ching wrote:
I am testing my btrfs root partition with max_inline=0, and 64k leaf
size for weeks and it seems that it is fine.
Related to inlining itself, ext4 and xfs are receiving inline data
support, so it would make sense to introduce a per-file
The current behavior is to allow mounting or remounting a filesystem
writeable in degraded mode if at least one writeable device is
present.
The next failed write access to a missing device which is above
the tolerance of the configured level of redundancy results in an
read-only enforcement. Even
On 2012-10-30 10:42, Michael Kjörling wrote:
On 29 Oct 2012 23:21 +0100, from kreij...@gmail.com (Goffredo Baroncelli):
Hi all,
[...]
One thing, though; what is the difference between unused and
unallocated? If there is no difference, I feel the same word should
be used throughout.
I had to
On 30 Oct 2012 19:15 +0100, from kreij...@gmail.com (Goffredo Baroncelli):
On 2012-10-30 10:42, Michael Kjörling wrote:
what is the difference between unused and unallocated? If there
is no difference, I feel the same word should be used throughout.
I had to use Unused instead of Unallocated
On Oct 30, 2012, at 12:32 PM, Michael Kjörling mich...@kjorling.se wrote:
I'm not so much concerned about the exact word being used as I feel
the same word should be used throughout a UI to describe the same
concept. Whether it's called free space, unused space,
unallocated space or
This patch passes a data pointer along to the alloc_inode
super_operations function. The value will initially be used by
bdev_alloc_inode to allocate the bdev_inode on the same numa
node as the device to which it is tied.
Signed-off-by: Jeff Moyer jmo...@redhat.com
---
fs/afs/super.c |
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 04:14:39PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
This patch passes a data pointer along to the alloc_inode
super_operations function. The value will initially be used by
bdev_alloc_inode to allocate the bdev_inode on the same numa
node as the device to which it is tied.
Yecchhh...
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 8:20 PM, Liu Bo bo.li@oracle.com wrote:
On 10/30/2012 04:06 AM, Mitch Harder wrote:
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 5:28 AM, Liu Bo bo.li@oracle.com wrote:
This comes from one of btrfs's project ideas,
As we defragment files, we break any sharing from other snapshots.
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 08:51:42PM +, Al Viro wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 04:14:39PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
This patch passes a data pointer along to the alloc_inode
super_operations function. The value will initially be used by
bdev_alloc_inode to allocate the bdev_inode on the
On 10/30/2012 08:04 PM, Felix Pepinghege wrote:
Hi ching!
Am 30.10.2012 12:04, schrieb ching:
Hi all,
I am testing my btrfs root partition with max_inline=0, and 64k leaf size
for weeks and it seems that it is fine.
AFAIK btrfs inline small files into metadata by default, I am curious
On 10/30/2012 08:17 PM, cwillu wrote:
If there is a lot of small files, then the size of metadata will be
undesirable due to deduplication
Yes, that is a fact, but if that really matters depends on the use-case
(e.g., the small files to large files ratio, ...). But as btrfs is designed
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 05:40:25AM +0800, ching wrote:
On 10/30/2012 08:17 PM, cwillu wrote:
If there is a lot of small files, then the size of metadata will be
undesirable due to deduplication
Yes, that is a fact, but if that really matters depends on the use-case
(e.g., the small
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 3:40 PM, ching lschin...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/30/2012 08:17 PM, cwillu wrote:
If there is a lot of small files, then the size of metadata will be
undesirable due to deduplication
Yes, that is a fact, but if that really matters depends on the use-case
(e.g., the
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 10:14:12PM +, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 05:40:25AM +0800, ching wrote:
On 10/30/2012 08:17 PM, cwillu wrote:
If there is a lot of small files, then the size of metadata will be
undesirable due to deduplication
Yes, that is a fact, but if
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 06:28:41PM +0800, Liu Bo wrote:
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
On 10/31/2012 06:16 AM, cwillu wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 3:40 PM, ching lschin...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/30/2012 08:17 PM, cwillu wrote:
If there is a lot of small files, then the size of metadata will be
undesirable due to deduplication
Yes, that is a fact, but if that really matters
On 10/31/2012 06:19 AM, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 10:14:12PM +, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 05:40:25AM +0800, ching wrote:
On 10/30/2012 08:17 PM, cwillu wrote:
If there is a lot of small files, then the size of metadata will be
undesirable due to
Hello,
I have been having some crashes like this. Since I upgraded to 3.6.4 they have
become common. The crashes happen pretty randomly during normal system usage.
After the syslog messages the system stays semi usable for a minute, but when I
run any new program it hangs. I had to downgrade
Patch looks ok, juste one thing that caught my attention (and does not block
the patch)
a bit of context:
1224 if (fs_info-fs_devices-rw_devices == 0) {
1225 ret = -EACCES;
1226 goto restore;
1227 }
+
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 07:47:14AM +0800, ching wrote:
On 10/31/2012 06:19 AM, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 10:14:12PM +, Hugo Mills wrote:
if i have 10G small files in total, then it will consume 20G by default.
If those small files are each 128 bytes in size, then you
On 10/30/2012 08:08 PM, cwillu wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 5:47 AM, ching lschin...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
I try to defrag my btrfs root partition (run by root privilege)
find / -type f -o -type d -print0 | xargs --null --no-run-if-empty btrfs
filesystem defragment -t
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 5:47 PM, ching lschin...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/31/2012 06:19 AM, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 10:14:12PM +, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 05:40:25AM +0800, ching wrote:
On 10/30/2012 08:17 PM, cwillu wrote:
If there is a lot of small
On 10/31/2012 07:31 AM, David Sterba wrote:
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 06:28:41PM +0800, Liu Bo wrote:
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
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 07:47:28PM +0800, ching wrote:
failed to open /bin/bash
open:: Text file busy
That's not a btrfs problem, you can't directly modify an executable that
is being used.
failed to open /lib64/ld-2.15.so
failed to open /sbin/agetty
failed to open
On 10/30/2012 11:20 PM, Gábor Nyers wrote:
Hi,
How could one find out if 2 files share any extents on a btrfs file system?
A more generic variation of the above: How to list files on the same
file system/subvolume sharing content?
Indeed ocfs2 already has the feature where you can get
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 08:34:38AM +0800, Liu Bo wrote:
Besides 'btrfs fi defrag', mounting with autodefrag may also do the same
thing.
Ok, autodefrag, good point. Then I suggest to make the snapshot-aware a
mode of autodefrag, not a separate option (because it would make no
sense other than
On 10/31/2012 07:57 AM, Franke wrote:
Hello,
I have been having some crashes like this. Since I upgraded to 3.6.4 they
have become common. The crashes happen pretty randomly during normal system
usage. After the syslog messages the system stays semi usable for a minute,
but when I run
On 10/31/2012 08:47 AM, Liu Bo wrote:
On 10/31/2012 07:57 AM, Franke wrote:
Hello,
I have been having some crashes like this. Since I upgraded to 3.6.4 they
have become common. The crashes happen pretty randomly during normal system
usage. After the syslog messages the system stays semi
On Tue, 2012-10-30 at 00:48 -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 09:49:58AM +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
The uuid_le/be_gen() in lib/uuid.c has set UUID variants to be DCE,
that is done in __uuid_gen_common() with b[8] = (b[8] 0x3F) | 0x80.
Oh, I see, I missed that.
To deal
On 10/31/2012 08:40 AM, Liu Bo wrote:
On 10/30/2012 11:20 PM, Gábor Nyers wrote:
Hi,
How could one find out if 2 files share any extents on a btrfs file system?
A more generic variation of the above: How to list files on the same
file system/subvolume sharing content?
One idea is to mark
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 09:35:37AM +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
The intention of lib/uuid.c is to unify various UUID related code, and
put them in same place. In addition to UUID generation, it provide some
other utility and may provide/collect more in the future. So do you
think it is a good
On Tue, 2012-10-30 at 22:38 -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 09:35:37AM +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
The intention of lib/uuid.c is to unify various UUID related code, and
put them in same place. In addition to UUID generation, it provide some
other utility and may
On 31/10/12 10:57, Franke wrote:
I have been having some crashes like this. Since I upgraded to 3.6.4
they have become common. The crashes happen pretty randomly during
normal system usage. After the syslog messages the system stays semi
usable for a minute, but when I run any new program it
45 matches
Mail list logo
