On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 12:11:43PM +0600, Roman Mamedov wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 22:31:08 -0700
> Michael Johnson - MJ wrote:
>
> > What I now suspect is going on is that while deleting the snapshots
> > was quick, that probably kicks of a background thread which actually
> > does the heavy l
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 22:31:08 -0700
Michael Johnson - MJ wrote:
> What I now suspect is going on is that while deleting the snapshots
> was quick, that probably kicks of a background thread which actually
> does the heavy lifting.
Exactly that, the snapshot deletion only "syncs" on unmount, there
I currently have a btrfs filesystem that I am unmounting and it has
been has been "unmounting" for the last 20 minutes.
I'm pretty sure I know exactly what is going on and in my current
situation it's not a huge issues, but it would be a problem if this
was a production system and I was trying to
On 3/10/13 6:03 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 09, 2013 at 06:24:47PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> On 1/18/13 3:48 PM, Koen De Wit wrote:
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +_scratch_mount
>>> +_create_reflinks_to $TESTDIR2
>>> +_scratch_unmount
>>> +
>>> +mount $TEST_DEV $SCRATCH_MNT
>>> +_create_reflinks_t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/03/13 15:04, Hugo Mills wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 09, 2013 at 09:41:50PM -0800, Roger Binns wrote:
>> The only constraints that matter are surviving N device failures, and
>> data not lost if at least N devices are still present. Under the
>> hood th
On 09/03/13 20:31, Hugo Mills wrote:
>Some time ago, and occasionally since, we've discussed altering the
> "RAID-n" terminology to change it to an "nCmSpP" format, where n is the
> number of copies, m is the number of (data) devices in a stripe per copy,
> and p is the number of parity devices
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 11:40:27PM +, sam tygier wrote:
> On 10/03/13 15:43, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
> > - DUP -> dD (to allow more that 2 copy per
> > disk)
> >
> > - RAID1 -> nC or *C
> >
> > -
Replaced calls to kmalloc followed by memcpy with single call to kmemdup.
This patch was found using coccicheck.
Signed-off-by: Alexandru Gheorghiu
---
fs/btrfs/send.c |3 +--
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/send.c b/fs/btrfs/send.c
index f7a8b86..f1e1e3
On 10/03/13 15:43, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
> - DUP -> dD (to allow more that 2 copy per
>disk)
>
> - RAID1 -> nC or *C
>
> - RAID0 -> mS or *S
>
> - RAID10 -> nCmS or *CmS o
El Domingo, 10 de marzo de 2013 12:23:56 Martin Steigerwald escribió:
> Any other idea to make it less cryptic?
I would vote for optionally allowing to expand the codes into
something more verbose and self-documented, ie:
1CmS1P <-> 1Copy-manyStripes-1Parity
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send
On Sat, Mar 09, 2013 at 06:24:47PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 1/18/13 3:48 PM, Koen De Wit wrote:
> > +}
> > +
> > +_scratch_mount
> > +_create_reflinks_to $TESTDIR2
> > +_scratch_unmount
> > +
> > +mount $TEST_DEV $SCRATCH_MNT
> > +_create_reflinks_to $TESTDIR3
> > +umount $SCRATCH_MNT
>
> T
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 11:24 PM, Hugo Mills wrote:
>> On 03/09/2013 09:31 PM, Hugo Mills wrote:
>> >Some time ago, and occasionally since, we've discussed altering the
>> > "RAID-n" terminology to change it to an "nCmSpP" format, where n is the
>> > number of copies, m is the number of (data)
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 04:43:33PM +0100, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
> Hi Hugo,
>
> On 03/09/2013 09:31 PM, Hugo Mills wrote:
> >Some time ago, and occasionally since, we've discussed altering the
> > "RAID-n" terminology to change it to an "nCmSpP" format, where n is the
> > number of copies,
I created a btrfs volume on a 4GB drive using the entire drive
(VirtualBox VM). Of this drive btrfs immediately used 400 MB. I then
filled it up with random data, left around 300 MB free and made a
md5sum of said data. Then I umounted the volume and wrote random data
into it the drive with dd at 1G
On Sat, Mar 09, 2013 at 09:41:50PM -0800, Roger Binns wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 09/03/13 17:44, Hugo Mills wrote:
> > You've got at least three independent parameters to the system in order
> > to make that choice, though, and it's a fairly fuzzy decision prob
On 03/10/2013 10:45 PM, Harald Glatt wrote:
> I've noticed through my own tests that on a single device I can
> corrupt around 5% of the data completely before btrfs fails. Up to
> that point both filesystem as well as data integrity stays at 100%.
> However the default layout for one disk seems t
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 10:36 PM, Hugo Mills wrote:
>
>Oh, sorry. It's "reduced redundancy", aka DUP -- i.e. you get that
> number of copies, but not guarantee that the copies all live on
> different devices. I'm not devoted to showing it this way. Other
> suggestions for making this distincti
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 12:23:56PM +0100, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> Hi Hugo,
>
> Am Samstag, 9. März 2013 schrieb Hugo Mills:
> >Some time ago, and occasionally since, we've discussed altering the
> > "RAID-n" terminology to change it to an "nCmSpP" format, where n is the
> > number of copie
This patch adds the raid[56] options to the output of mkfs.btrfs help.
---
mkfs.c |2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/mkfs.c b/mkfs.c
index 5ece186..f9f26a5 100644
--- a/mkfs.c
+++ b/mkfs.c
@@ -326,7 +326,7 @@ static void print_usage(void)
fprintf(stderr,
On Sat, Mar 09, 2013 at 12:03:07PM +, Swasher wrote:
> After it, I'm start watch for progress via 'balance status', and I can see
> how
> progress run. But only for 83% left.
>
> I'm wait few hours and try cancel it with 'balance cancel'.
> More than 12 hours had passed, but balance stalled
On 03/10/2013 06:20 PM, Hugo Mills wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 03:01:12PM +0100, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
>> Hi Hugo,
>>
>> could you please add also to the btrfs man page a section where are
>> described the nCmSpP levels ?
>>
>> Thanks.
>> GB
>>
>>
>>
>> On 03/09/2013 09:31 PM, Hugo Mills
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 03:01:12PM +0100, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
> Hi Hugo,
>
> could you please add also to the btrfs man page a section where are
> described the nCmSpP levels ?
>
> Thanks.
> GB
>
>
>
> On 03/09/2013 09:31 PM, Hugo Mills wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Hugo Mills
> > ---
[sni
On 03/10/2013 02:19 PM, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 10. März 2013 schrieb Martin Steigerwald:
>> Am Sonntag, 10. März 2013 schrieb Goffredo Baroncelli:
>>> Hi all,
>>
>> Hi Goffredo,
>>
>>> This is the third attempt of my patches related to show how the data
>>> are stored in a btrfs fi
Hi Martin,
On 03/10/2013 02:16 PM, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 10. März 2013 schrieb Goffredo Baroncelli:
>> Hi all,
>
> Hi Goffredo,
>
>> This is the third attempt of my patches related to show how the data
>> are stored in a btrfs filesystem. I rebased all the patches on the lates
Hi Hugo,
On 03/09/2013 09:31 PM, Hugo Mills wrote:
>Some time ago, and occasionally since, we've discussed altering the
> "RAID-n" terminology to change it to an "nCmSpP" format, where n is the
> number of copies, m is the number of (data) devices in a stripe per copy,
> and p is the number of
On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 04:39:50PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> This gets the coverity issue count down to 33. Before Zach started this
> process, we were over 150, IIRC. So it's almost to the point where the
> scans will be manageable going forward.
>
> Not a lot of real bugfixes here, but a bi
Hello,
> From: Goffredo Baroncelli
>
> Enhance the command "btrfs filesystem df" to show space usage information
> for a mount point(s). It shows also an estimation of the space available,
> on the basis of the current one used.
>
> Signed-off-by: Goffredo Baroncelli
> ---
> Makefile
On 03/10/2013 03:34 PM, Wang Shilong wrote:
> Hello,
[...]
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * Add a string to the dynamic allocated string list
>> + */
>> +char *string_list_add(char *s)
>> +{
>> +int size;
>> +
>
> I'd prefer to have a check here firstly, like:
> if (!s)
> r
Hello,
> From: Goffredo Baroncelli
>
> This patch adds some helpers to manage the strings allocation and
> deallocation.
> The function string_list_add(char *) adds the passed string to a list;
> the function string_list_free() frees all the strings together.
>
> Signed-off-by: Goffredo Baronce
Hi Martin,
On 03/10/2013 12:23 PM, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> Hi Hugo,
>
> Am Samstag, 9. März 2013 schrieb Hugo Mills:
>>Some time ago, and occasionally since, we've discussed altering the
>> "RAID-n" terminology to change it to an "nCmSpP" format, where n is the
>> number of copies, m is t
Hi Hugo,
could you please add also to the btrfs man page a section where are
described the nCmSpP levels ?
Thanks.
GB
On 03/09/2013 09:31 PM, Hugo Mills wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Hugo Mills
> ---
> man/btrfs.8.in |9 +
> man/mkfs.btrfs.8.in | 24 +++-
> 2
Am Sonntag, 10. März 2013 schrieb Martin Steigerwald:
> Am Sonntag, 10. März 2013 schrieb Goffredo Baroncelli:
> > Hi all,
>
> Hi Goffredo,
>
> > This is the third attempt of my patches related to show how the data
> > are stored in a btrfs filesystem. I rebased all the patches on the
> > latest
Am Sonntag, 10. März 2013 schrieb Goffredo Baroncelli:
> Hi all,
Hi Goffredo,
> This is the third attempt of my patches related to show how the data
> are stored in a btrfs filesystem. I rebased all the patches on the latest
> mason git. I tried to address the Zach concern abou the using of
> th
From: Goffredo Baroncelli
Signed-off-by: Goffredo Baroncelli
---
cmds-fi-disk_usage.c | 432 ++
cmds-fi-disk_usage.h |3 +
cmds-filesystem.c|2 +
utils.c | 58 +++
utils.h |3 +
5 files changed, 498
From: Goffredo Baroncelli
Signed-off-by: Goffredo Baroncelli
---
cmds-device.c|3 ++
cmds-fi-disk_usage.c | 141 ++
cmds-fi-disk_usage.h |3 ++
3 files changed, 147 insertions(+)
diff --git a/cmds-device.c b/cmds-device.c
index 1
From: Goffredo Baroncelli
Signed-off-by: Goffredo Baroncelli
---
man/btrfs.8.in |8
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
diff --git a/man/btrfs.8.in b/man/btrfs.8.in
index 50dc510..e60c81f 100644
--- a/man/btrfs.8.in
+++ b/man/btrfs.8.in
@@ -46,6 +46,8 @@ btrfs \- control a btrfs files
From: Goffredo Baroncelli
This patch adds some functions to manage the printing of the data in
tabular format.
The function
struct string_table *table_create(int columns, int rows)
creates an (empty) table.
The functions
char *table_printf(struct string_table *tab, int column,
From: Goffredo Baroncelli
Signed-off-by: Goffredo Baroncelli
---
man/btrfs.8.in | 13 +
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
diff --git a/man/btrfs.8.in b/man/btrfs.8.in
index e2f86ea..50dc510 100644
--- a/man/btrfs.8.in
+++ b/man/btrfs.8.in
@@ -29,6 +29,9 @@ btrfs \- control a btrfs
From: Goffredo Baroncelli
Signed-off-by: Goffredo Baroncelli
---
man/btrfs.8.in | 49 +
1 file changed, 49 insertions(+)
diff --git a/man/btrfs.8.in b/man/btrfs.8.in
index 94f4ffe..e2f86ea 100644
--- a/man/btrfs.8.in
+++ b/man/btrfs.8.in
@@ -31
From: Goffredo Baroncelli
Enhance the command "btrfs filesystem df" to show space usage information
for a mount point(s). It shows also an estimation of the space available,
on the basis of the current one used.
Signed-off-by: Goffredo Baroncelli
---
Makefile |2 +-
cmds-fi-dis
From: Goffredo Baroncelli
This patch adds some helpers to manage the strings allocation and
deallocation.
The function string_list_add(char *) adds the passed string to a list;
the function string_list_free() frees all the strings together.
Signed-off-by: Goffredo Baroncelli
---
Makefile
Hi all,
This is the third attempt of my patches related to show how the data
are stored in a btrfs filesystem. I rebased all the patches on the latest
mason git. I tried to address the Zach concern abou the using of
the string_list_add() in the df_pretty_sizes(): string_list_add() is
removed from
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/03/13 22:37, Harald Glatt wrote:
> I have to add something to my own message: Even the notion of thinking
> in 'how many devices do I want to give away for redundancy' is
> outdated...
Devices are the only real tangible thing that you can actu
Am Sonntag, 10. März 2013 schrieb Harald Glatt:
> > Very good points,
> >
> > I was also gonna write something by the lines of 'all that matters is
> > achieving the minimum amount of redundancy, as requested by the user,
> > at the maximum possible performance'.
> >
> > After reading your post n
Hi Hugo,
Am Samstag, 9. März 2013 schrieb Hugo Mills:
>Some time ago, and occasionally since, we've discussed altering the
> "RAID-n" terminology to change it to an "nCmSpP" format, where n is the
> number of copies, m is the number of (data) devices in a stripe per copy,
> and p is the number
45 matches
Mail list logo
