On May 19, 2013, at 12:59 PM, Martin wrote:
>
> btrfs-raid offers a greater variety and far greater flexibility of raid
> options individually for filedata and metadata at the filesystem level.
Well it really doesn't. The btrfs raid advantages leverage prior work that
makes btrfs what it is.
On 19/05/13 18:39, Clemens Eisserer wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
>> So, an interesting variation could be to have filesystem level raid
>> operating on ext4 or nilfs or whatever... Would that be a sensible idea?
>
> Thats already supported by using LVM. What do you think you would gain
> from layering i
On May 19, 2013, at 12:18 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> It's not possible to mount regular directories with other file systems. In
> some ways the btrfs subvolume behaves like a folder. In other ways it acts
> like a device. If you stat the mount point for btrfs subvolumes, you get a
> unique
On May 19, 2013, at 5:15 AM, Roman Mamedov wrote:
> On Fri, 10 May 2013 07:03:38 -0700
> George Mitchell wrote:
>
>> One the things that is frustrating me the most at this point from a user
>> perspective regarding btrfs is the current lack of virtual devices to
>> describe volumes and subvo
Hi Martin,
> So, an interesting variation could be to have filesystem level raid
> operating on ext4 or nilfs or whatever... Would that be a sensible idea?
Thats already supported by using LVM. What do you think you would gain
from layering in top of btrfs?
- Clemens
--
To unsubscribe from this
Dear Devs,
Would there be any problem to use nbd (/dev/ndX) devices to gain
btrfs-raid across multiple physical hosts across a network? (For a sort
of btrfs-drbd! :-) )
Regards,
Martin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_block_device
http://www.drbd.org/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: se
Just a random Sunday afternoon thought:
We've got some rather nice variations on the block-level RAID schemes
but instead being implemented at the filesystem level in btrfs...
Could the btrfs RAID be coded to be general so that a filesystem stack
could be set up whereby the filesystem level raids
OK, so to summarise:
On 19/05/13 15:49, George Mitchell wrote:
> In reply to both of these comments in one message, let me give you an
> example.
>
> I use shell scripts to mount and unmount btrfs volumes for backup
> purposes. Most of these volumes are not listed in fstab simply because
> I do
In reply to both of these comments in one message, let me give you an
example.
I use shell scripts to mount and unmount btrfs volumes for backup
purposes. Most of these volumes are not listed in fstab simply because
I do not want to have to clutter my fstab with volumes that are used
only fo
Am Sonntag, 19. Mai 2013, 21:43:14 schrieb Zhi Yong Wu:
> On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Martin Steigerwald
wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, 9. Mai 2013, 07:13:56 schrieb Zhi Yong Wu:
[…]
> > ZFS and BTRFS have shown that RAID support within the filesystem can make
> > a lot of sense. I think hot relo
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 9. Mai 2013, 07:13:56 schrieb Zhi Yong Wu:
>> HI, all
>
> Hi!
>
>>I saw that bcache will be merged into kernel upstream soon, so i
>> want to know if btrfs hot relocation support is still meanful, if no,
>> i will not
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 9. Mai 2013, 07:13:56 schrieb Zhi Yong Wu:
>> HI, all
>
> Hi!
>
>>I saw that bcache will be merged into kernel upstream soon, so i
>> want to know if btrfs hot relocation support is still meanful, if no,
>> i will not
On Fri, 10 May 2013 07:03:38 -0700
George Mitchell wrote:
> One the things that is frustrating me the most at this point from a user
> perspective regarding btrfs is the current lack of virtual devices to
> describe volumes and subvolumes.
From a user perspective btrfs subvolumes have a lot in
On 10/05/13 15:03, George Mitchell wrote:
> One the things that is frustrating me the most at this point from a user
> perspective ... The current method of simply using a
> random member device or a LABEL or a UUID is just not working well for
> me. Having a well thought out virtual device infra
Am Donnerstag, 9. Mai 2013, 07:13:56 schrieb Zhi Yong Wu:
> HI, all
Hi!
>I saw that bcache will be merged into kernel upstream soon, so i
> want to know if btrfs hot relocation support is still meanful, if no,
> i will not continue to work on it. can anyone let me know this?
> thanks.
I real
15 matches
Mail list logo
