Austin S Hemmelgarn posted on Fri, 04 Dec 2015 08:08:58 -0500 as
excerpted:
> On 2015-12-04 05:00, Russell Coker wrote:
>>
>> When I mounted the filesystem with a 4.2.0 kernel it said "The free
>> space cache file (1103101952) is invalid, skip it" and then things
>> worked. Now that the machine
On Wednesday 02 December 2015 18:46:30 Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
>What are your disk space savings when using btrfs with compression?
>
>I have a 200 GB btrfs filesystem which uses compress=zlib, only stores
>text files (logs), mostly multi-gigabyte files.
>
>
>It's a "single" filesystem, so "df"
On Saturday 05 December 2015 14:37:05 Marc Joliet wrote:
>My desktop looks like this:
>
>% df -h
>DateisystemGröße Benutzt Verf. Verw% Eingehängt auf
>/dev/sda1 108G 79G 26G 76% /
>[...]
>
>For / I get a total of about 8G or at least 9% space saving:
>
># du -hsc /mnt/rootfs/*
Christoph Anton Mitterer posted on Sat, 05 Dec 2015 04:28:24 +0100 as
excerpted:
> On Fri, 2015-12-04 at 13:07 +, Hugo Mills wrote:
>> I don't think it'll cause problems.
> Is there any guaranteed behaviour when btrfs encounters two filesystems
> (i.e. not talking about the subvols now) with
Marc Joliet posted on Sat, 05 Dec 2015 15:11:51 +0100 as excerpted:
> I do think it's interesting that compression (even with LZO) seems to
> have offset the extra space wastage caused by autodefrag.
I've seen (I think) you mention that twice now. Perhaps I'm missing
something... How does
> Subject: compression disk space saving - what are your results?
>
> What are your disk space savings when using btrfs with compression?
I checked that for some folders when I moved from ext4 to btrfs. I compared
du with df** just to get some numbers. I use lzo since btrfs-wiki said its
better
Am Samstag, 5. Dezember 2015, 11:17:26 schrieb Holger Hoffstätte:
> On 12/05/15 11:04, Wolfgang Rohdewald wrote:
> > Am Samstag, 5. Dezember 2015, 10:58:44 schrieb Holger Hoffstätte:
> >> Please see: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg49766.html
> >>
> >> You should be able to apply those
On Sat, Dec 05, 2015 at 04:28:24AM +0100, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-12-04 at 13:07 +, Hugo Mills wrote:
> > I don't think it'll cause problems.
> Is there any guaranteed behaviour when btrfs encounters two filesystems
> (i.e. not talking about the subvols now) with the
Unmodified Linux 4.3 tainted with nvidia
after adding disk #4 to RAID1, I did
btrfs filesystem balance /t4
Dec 5 08:07:26 s5 kernel: [55868.756847] BTRFS info (device sdc): relocating
block group 10768619667456 flags 17
Dec 5 08:07:35 s5 kernel: [55878.297200] BTRFS info (device sdc): found
Hi all,
If I understand it correctly, defragment operation is done in user space tools,
while scrub/re-balance is done in kernel thread.
So, if my kernel module calls freeze_bdev when scrub/re-balance is in progress,
will I still be able to get a consistent file system state?
Thanks
Mike
On 12/05/15 10:09, Wolfgang Rohdewald wrote:
> Unmodified Linux 4.3 tainted with nvidia
>
> after adding disk #4 to RAID1, I did
>
> btrfs filesystem balance /t4
>
> Dec 5 08:07:26 s5 kernel: [55868.756847] BTRFS info (device sdc): relocating
> block group 10768619667456 flags 17
> Dec 5
Am Samstag, 5. Dezember 2015, 10:58:44 schrieb Holger Hoffstätte:
> Please see: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg49766.html
>
> You should be able to apply those patches manually (assuming you can/want to
> rebuild).
>
are my data safe if I just wait for a fixed official kernel and
On 12/05/15 11:04, Wolfgang Rohdewald wrote:
> Am Samstag, 5. Dezember 2015, 10:58:44 schrieb Holger Hoffstätte:
>> Please see: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg49766.html
>>
>> You should be able to apply those patches manually (assuming you can/want to
>> rebuild).
>
> are my data
On Sat, 2015-12-05 at 13:19 +, Duncan wrote:
> The problem with btrfs is that because (unlike traditional
> filesystems)
> it's multi-device, it needs some way to identify what devices belong
> to a
> particular filesystem.
Sure, but that applies to lvm, or MD as well... and I wouldn't know
On Sat, 2015-12-05 at 12:01 +, Hugo Mills wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 05, 2015 at 04:28:24AM +0100, Christoph Anton Mitterer
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2015-12-04 at 13:07 +, Hugo Mills wrote:
> > > I don't think it'll cause problems.
> > Is there any guaranteed behaviour when btrfs encounters two
> >
Christoph Anton Mitterer posted on Sun, 06 Dec 2015 02:51:20 +0100 as
excerpted:
> You have things like ATMs, which are physically usually quite well
> secured, but which do have rather easily accessible maintenance ports.
> All of us have seen such embedded devices rebooting themselves, where
>
16 matches
Mail list logo
