No idea what that means.
On Dec 3, 2012, at 12:52 AM, Rock Lee wrote:
> Maybe this function could give you a little explanation.
>
> static inline u64 btrfs_sb_offset(int mirror)
> {
>u64 start = 16 * 1024;
>if (mirror)
>return start << (BTRFS_SUPER_MIRROR_SHIFT * mirror);
>
Maybe this function could give you a little explanation.
static inline u64 btrfs_sb_offset(int mirror)
{
u64 start = 16 * 1024;
if (mirror)
return start << (BTRFS_SUPER_MIRROR_SHIFT * mirror);
return BTRFS_SUPER_INFO_OFFSET;
}
and BTRFS_SUPER_INFO_OFFSET is (64 * 1024)
2012/
When creating a btrfs volume with mkfs.btrfs, I'm noticing that the first 64KB
are completely blank. Is this gap expressly intended for installing a boot
manager/loader? e.g. GRUB 2 allows installation of boot.img + core.img into a
btrfs formatted partition, without using block lists (the --forc
On Sun, Dec 02, 2012 at 07:49:17PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Dec 2, 2012, at 6:59 PM, Michael wrote:
>
> > Subvolid=0 is always the root subvolume.
>
> OK so then what is subvolid=5?
We've parsed subvolid=5 and subvolid=0 to the same results, FS_TREE.
FYI, the code is
On Dec 2, 2012, at 6:59 PM, Michael wrote:
> Subvolid=0 is always the root subvolume.
OK so then what is subvolid=5?
Chris Murphy
--
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 http://vge
Subvolid 0 is always the root.
On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Michael wrote:
>
> Subvolid=0 is always the root subvolume.
>
> On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Dec 2, 2012, at 3:46 PM, Hugo Mills wrote:
>>
>> > No, there's precisely one top-level subvolume (subvol
On Dec 2, 2012, at 3:46 PM, Hugo Mills wrote:
> No, there's precisely one top-level subvolume (subvolid=5).
What is subvolid=0? I recently got myself into a subvolume maze and ended up
mounting subvolid=0 to get back to the top level and that seemed to work at the
time.
Chris Murphy
--
To u
On Sun, Dec 02, 2012 at 11:17:26PM +0100, Aastha Mehta wrote:
> I am looking at btrfs to understand some of its features. One of them
> is the snapshot feature. Please tell me if my following understanding
> about snapshots in btrfs is correct or not.
>
> Btrfs supports both readonly and writeable
Hiya Riccardo,
On 02/12/12 19:49, Riccardo Berto wrote:
I'm a btrfs user since I encountered the ext4 3.6.2 bug and then I
decided to switch.
You are aware that the ext4 issue you mention only affects people who
turned on journal checksums, and is not turned on by default?
This LWN article h
On 2 Dec 2012 09:49 +0100, from riccardo...@gmail.com (Riccardo Berto):
> I'm a btrfs user since I encountered the ext4 3.6.2 bug and then I
> decided to switch.
> Now it seems to work fine, I will stick with this fs until your needs
> in order to give you logs to better understand what happened.
Hi there,
I had remote filesystem not unmounting during shutdown so I hit the reboot
button. Did so a couple of times in the past. 3.6.8-1-ARCH, btrfs-progs
0.19.20121005-4, don't remember the exact version I used when creating the
filesystem (0.19 something).
btrfsck looks like this:
check
Hi
I'm a btrfs user since I encountered the ext4 3.6.2 bug and then I
decided to switch.
Today I was using my system when the /home btrfs filesystem get
corrupted. I rebooted almost instantly but it couldn't mount /home
(/dev/sda4). So I disabled the /home automount in fstab in order to
have gnome
12 matches
Mail list logo
