Hi, Filipe
-Original Message-
From: linux-btrfs-ow...@vger.kernel.org
[mailto:linux-btrfs-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Filipe David Manana
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2015 7:55 PM
To: Zhaolei
Cc: fste...@vger.kernel.org; linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fix
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 01:58:46AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
Building alpha:allmodconfig fails with
fs/btrfs/inode.c: In function 'check_direct_IO':
fs/btrfs/inode.c:8050:2: error: implicit declaration of function
'iov_iter_alignment'
due to a missing include file.
Fixes:
Rich Freeman r-bt...@thefreemanclan.net schrieb:
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 7:43 AM, Kai Krakow hurikha...@gmail.com wrote:
With the planned performance improvements, I'm guessing the best way will
become mounting the root subvolume (subvolid 0) and letting duperemove
work on that as a whole -
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 7:43 AM, Kai Krakow hurikha...@gmail.com wrote:
With the planned performance improvements, I'm guessing the best way will
become mounting the root subvolume (subvolid 0) and letting duperemove work
on that as a whole - including crossing all fs boundaries.
Why cross
On Sun, 2015-03-29 at 13:43 +0200, Kai Krakow wrote:
Concluding that: duperemove should probably not try to become smart about
filesystem boundaries. It should either cross them or not as it is now - the
option is left to the user (as is the task to supply proper cmdline
arguments with
On Sun, 2015-03-29 at 16:44 +0200, Kai Krakow wrote:
Yes, the chosen default is probably not the best for this kind of utility.
But I suppose it follows the principle of least surprise. At least every
utility I'm daily using (like find) follows this default route.
But the default with all
Rich Freeman r-bt...@thefreemanclan.net schrieb:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 8:07 PM, Martin m_bt...@ml1.co.uk wrote:
Anyone with any comments on how well duperemove performs for TB-sized
volumes?
Took many hours but less than a day for a few TB - I'm not sure
whether it is smart enough to
On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 13:40:56 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Juan Orti Alcaine
juan.o...@miceliux.com wrote:
The filesystem was created with one device, and I have added two more
devices afterwards. To convert it to raid1, I have used:
# btrfs balance start
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Juan Orti Alcaine
juan.o...@miceliux.com wrote:
The filesystem was created with one device, and I have added two more
devices afterwards. To convert it to raid1, I have used:
# btrfs balance start -dconvert=raid1 -mconvert=raid1 /mnt/btrfs_raid1
The balance
Hello, I'm experiencing problems while balancing a filesystem to
raid1. The versions I'm using are:
kernel-4.0.0-0.rc5.git1.3.fc22.x86_64
btrfs-progs-3.19.1-1.fc22.x86_64
The filesystem was created with one device, and I have added two more
devices afterwards. To convert it to raid1, I have
10 matches
Mail list logo
