On 19/05/13 20:34, Chris Murphy wrote:
On May 19, 2013, at 12:59 PM, Martin m_bt...@ml1.co.uk 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
Dear BTRFS-Community,
as far as I understand I believe it would make sense to apply that one upstream:
like described, it ... Fixes FTBFS on alpha and ia64 ...
cat 02-ftbfs.patch
Authors:
Luca Bruno lu...@debian.org
Alexander Kurtz kurtz.a...@googlemail.com
Daniel Baumann
Dear BTRFS-Community,
this patch is a reworked one of the debian-original to address the latest
changes in the btrfs-tools source code.
It fixes problems that can occur when you boot a machine with btrfs root
filesystem.
Boot can stop, because fsck of the btrfs-root-filesystem fails.
Here
From: Zhi Yong Wu wu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Add one list_head field 'reloc_list' to accommodate
hot relocation support.
Signed-off-by: Zhi Yong Wu wu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
---
fs/hot_tracking.c| 1 +
include/linux/hot_tracking.h | 1 +
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git
From: Zhi Yong Wu wu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Introduce one new block group BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DATA_NONROT,
which is used to differentiate if the block space is reserved
and allocated from one rotating disk or nonrotating disk.
Signed-off-by: Zhi Yong Wu wu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
---
From: Zhi Yong Wu wu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Add one new mount option '-o hot_move' for hot
relocation support. When hot relocation is enabled,
hot tracking will be enabled automatically.
Its usage looks like:
mount -o hot_move
mount -o nouser,hot_move
mount -o nouser,hot_move,loop
From: Zhi Yong Wu wu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Add three proc interfaces hot-reloc-interval, hot-reloc-threshold,
and hot-reloc-max-items under the dir /proc/sys/fs/ in order to
turn HOT_RELOC_INTERVAL, HOT_RELOC_THRESHOLD, and HOT_RELOC_MAX_ITEMS
into be tunable.
Signed-off-by: Zhi Yong Wu
From: Zhi Yong Wu wu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
The patchset as RFC is sent out mainly to see if its design
goes in the correct development direction.
When working on this feature, i am trying to change as less
the existing btrfs code as possible. After V0 was sent out,
i carefully checked the
From: Zhi Yong Wu wu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Add one private thread for hot relocation. It will check
if there're some extents which is hotter than the threshold
and queue them at first, if no, it will return and wait for
its next turn; otherwise, it will check if nonrotating disk
ratio is
This fixes bugzilla 57491. If we take a snapshot of a fs with a unlink ongoing
and then try to send that root we will run into problems. When comparing with a
parent root we will search the parents and the send roots commit_root, which if
we've just created the snapshot will include the file
Hello Josef,
It seems you missed Reported-by in changelog~_~
Thanks,
Wang
Josef Bacik jba...@fusionio.com编写：
This fixes bugzilla 57491. If we take a snapshot of a fs with a unlink ongoing
and then try to send that root we will run into problems. When comparing with
a
parent root we will
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 09:48:54AM -0600, Wang Shilong wrote:
Hello Josef,
It seems you missed Reported-by in changelog~_~
Yup I'll fix it up in my tree, thanks,
Josef
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a message to
I'm not sure how the numbering is supposed to work now that we've split
everything out so I'm just going with the next number in the directory. This is
a regression test for btrfs send, we had a problem where we'd try to send a file
that had been deleted in the source snapshot. This is just to
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 01:20:34PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
I'm not sure how the numbering is supposed to work now that we've split
everything out so I'm just going with the next number in the directory. This
is
a regression test for btrfs send, we had a problem where we'd try to send a
Chris Murphy posted on Sun, 19 May 2013 12:18:19 -0600 as excerpted:
On May 19, 2013, at 5:15 AM, Roman Mamedov r...@romanrm.ru wrote:
From a user perspective btrfs subvolumes have a lot in common with just
regular directories aka folders, and nothing in common with
(block)devices.
Duncan, The problem affects btrfs volumes that span multiple drive. If
you are using btrfs on a single drive that works just fine. But in a
multidrive situation, sometimes it works (when umount guesses the right
device name) and sometimes it fails (when umount guesses the wrong
device
zwu.kernel posted on Mon, 20 May 2013 23:11:22 +0800 as excerpted:
The patchset is trying to introduce hot relocation support
for BTRFS. In hybrid storage environment, when the data in rotating disk
get hot, it can be relocated to nonrotating disk by BTRFS hot relocation
support
On May 20, 2013, at 7:08 PM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Chris Murphy posted on Sun, 19 May 2013 12:18:19 -0600 as excerpted:
It seems inconsistent that mount and unmount allows a /dev/ designation,
but only mount honors label and UUID.
Yes.
I'm going to contradict myself and
George Mitchell posted on Mon, 20 May 2013 19:17:39 -0700 as excerpted:
Duncan, The problem affects btrfs volumes that span multiple drive. If
you are using btrfs on a single drive that works just fine. But in a
multidrive situation, sometimes it works (when umount guesses the right
device
On 05/20/2013 08:59 PM, Duncan wrote:
Then I ran into hardware issues that turned out to be bad caps on my
8- year-old mobo (tho it was dual-socket first-gen opteron, which I
had upgraded to top-of-its-line dual-core Opteron 290s, thus four
cores @ 2.8 GHz, with 8 gigs RAM, so it wasn't as
20 matches
Mail list logo
