ckup == no backup, or at best, backup still in
process!)
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
device
is actively getting worse it might be a losing battle) repair any
metadata damage on the bad device, thus giving you a far better chance of
saving the filesystem as a whole.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
Adam Borowski posted on Sun, 04 Nov 2018 20:55:30 +0100 as excerpted:
> On Sun, Nov 04, 2018 at 06:29:06PM +0000, Duncan wrote:
>> So do consider adding noatime to your mount options if you haven't done
>> so already. AFAIK, the only /semi-common/ app that actually uses
>&
y to access something. It's far lest
risky than a normal writable mount, and at minimum it provides you the
additional test data of whether it worked or not, plus if it does, a
chance to access the data and make sure your backups are current, before
actually trying to do any repairs.
--
Dun
the btrfs
replace case when it's actually a different device afterward anyway.
Apparently, it doesn't even do /that/ automatically yet. Keep that in
mind if you replace that device.)
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you u
' on-disk allocation code, etc.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
rect
version) to the other copy if the first copy read fails checksum
verification, with the much better optimized mdraid0 performance. So it
stands to reason that the same recommendation would apply to raid0 --
just do single-mode btrfs on mdraid0, for better performance than the as
yet unopti
e more realistic operations-reserve
calculations can fix things, first, as arguably that shouldn't be
necessary once the calculations aren't so arbitrarily wild.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
always strictly limited to that
of the point at which having a backup is more important than the time/
trouble/resources you save(d) by not having one.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
to store. But for people on a really tight budget or who are
storing double-digit TB of data or more, I can understand why they prefer
raid5, and I do think raid5 is stable enough for data now, as long as the
metadata remains raid1, AND they're actually executing on a good backup
policy.
--
Duncan
t;
> /sbin/btrfs
> /usr/bin/btrfs-subvolume-show
> /usr/bin/btrfs-subvolume-list
I did get you wrong (and had even understood the separately named
binaries from an earlier post, too, but forgot).
Thanks. =:^)
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree
t works.
But in that scheme /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin and /usr/sbin, are all the same
dir, so only one executable of a particularly name can exist therein.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
defeats checksumming and thus scrub, which
verifies checksums, simply skips it, and if the two copies get out of
sync for some reason...
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
onfigure option to disable the feature, because IMO
grub doesn't /need/ to save state at that point, and allowing it to do so
is effectively needlessly playing a risky Russian Roulette game with my
storage devices. Were it actually needed that'd be different, but it's
not needed, so any risk i
ond-back LTS.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
t scaling, capping to 100 snapshots
remains a reasonable recommendation, and if you need quotas as well and
can't afford to disable them even temporarily for a balance, you may find
under 50 snapshots to be your maintenance pain tolerance threshold.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
followed this extremely closely, but writing this actually spurred me to
google the problem and see when and how mdraid fixed it. So the links
are from that. =:^)
[2] Journalling/journaling, one or two Ls? The spellcheck flags both and
last I tried googling it the answer was inconclusive.
--
D
itigation is indeed actively
being worked on right now. That's what we know at this time.
And even before that, right now, raid56 mode should already be reasonably
usable, especially if you do data raid5/6 and metadata raid1, as long as
your backup policy and practice is equally reasonable.
--
emoved,
the above doesn't work and a reboot is necessary. Thus the need for
those patches you mentioned.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
it for days straight may not be viable.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
t the time I took the backup, so
it's not a limited recovery boot at all, it has the same access to tools,
manpages, net, X/plasma, browsers, etc, that my normal system does,
because it /is/ my normal system from whenever I took the backup.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
&
re
planning on mounting degraded (semi-)routinely, please do reconsider,
because it's just not ready for that at this point, and you're going to
run into all sorts of problems trying to do it on an ongoing basis due to
the above issues.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every
ime for a -w, but it might be worthwhile to try it on an ssd you're just
trying to salvage, forcing it to swap out any bad sectors it encounters
in the process.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your
ich does nothing (successfully) but
possibly print a message referring people to btrfs check, if run in
interactive mode.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
raded raid1
operationally can bring, tho I never figured out for sure whether btrfs
was smart enough to eventually pick up the other devices, after the scan
before bringing other btrfs online or not, but either way it was a risk I
wasn't willing to take.)
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No H
ly the appropriate
rootflags=device=...,device=... and actually have it work so I didn't
need the initr* any longer!
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
ota features can of course have their
> own tools, but all of this re-invention of the wheel for basic directory
> quotas is a mystery to me.
As mentioned above and by others, btrfs quotas don't use vfs quotas (or
the reverse, really, it'd be vfs quotas using information exposed by
btrfs quotas.
lts of the next
failure, whether it be hardware, software, or wetware (another fat-
fingering, again, this is coming from someone, me, who has had enough of
their own!), won't be anything to write the list about, unless of course
it's a btrfs bug and quite apart from worrying about your data, you're
j
or whatever, and in that case, at least here, I'd
strongly recommend you do just that, avoiding the nocow that I honestly
see as a compromise best left to those that really need it because they
aren't prepared to deal with the hassle of setting up the separate
filesystem along with all
B might wreak.
If they're not SMR then carry-on! =:^)
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscr
r you with it, that I've simply not run into
since whatever killed the filecaps here, because I don't use the
lockscreen.
But if I start using the lockscreen again and it fails, I know one not-so-
intuitive thing to check, now. =:^)
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
&quo
it'd be iputils' filecaps and
possibly caps USE flags controlling this for ping), and also that btrfs
send/receive did have a recent bugfix related to the extended-attributes
normally used to record filecaps, so the symptoms match the bug and
that's probably what you were seeing.
--
Duncan -
at its convenience), so the ssd can use
that extra room to do its wear-leveling, and don't do trim/discard at all.
FWIW I actually do both of these here, leaving significant space on the
device unpartitioned, and enabling that systemd fstrim timer job, as well.
--
Duncan - List replies prefer
Duncan posted on Wed, 18 Jul 2018 07:20:09 + as excerpted:
>> As implemented in BTRFS, raid1 doesn't have striping.
>
> The argument is that because there's only two copies, on multi-device
> btrfs raid1 with 4+ devices of equal size so chunk allocations tend to
> alte
Goffredo Baroncelli posted on Wed, 18 Jul 2018 07:59:52 +0200 as
excerpted:
> On 07/17/2018 11:12 PM, Duncan wrote:
>> Goffredo Baroncelli posted on Mon, 16 Jul 2018 20:29:46 +0200 as
>> excerpted:
>>
>>> On 07/15/2018 04:37 PM, waxhead wrote:
>>
re stored on a different disk
As someone else pointed out, md/lvm-raid10 already work like this. What
btrfs calls raid10 is somewhat different, but btrfs raid1 pretty much
works this way except with huge (gig size) chunks.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every
Andrei Borzenkov posted on Fri, 06 Jul 2018 07:28:48 +0300 as excerpted:
> 03.07.2018 10:15, Duncan пишет:
>> Andrei Borzenkov posted on Tue, 03 Jul 2018 07:25:14 +0300 as
>> excerpted:
>>
>>> 02.07.2018 21:35, Austin S. Hemmelgarn пишет:
>>>> them (tri
to matter, even choosing different boot media from the
bios doesn't seem to matter by the time the kernel runs (I'm less sure
about grub).
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." R
ft without any old roots for the usebackuproot
mount option to try to fall back to, should it actually be necessary.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
--
T
rent
filesystem that's mostly read-only, so less at risk and needing less
frequent backups. The tiny boot and large updates (distro repo, sources,
ccache) are also separate, and mounted only for boot maintenance or
updates.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonf
opy let alone a backup... well, much like that file in
tmpfs, what did they expect? They *really* defined that data as of no
more than trivial value, didn't they?
All that said, making the NOCOW warning labels a bit more bold print
couldn't hurt; and making scrub in the nocow case at least com
hat they were
supposed to be focused on, which is what we were seeing for awhile.
Plus the tools to do the debugging, etc, are far more mature now, another
reason bugs should hopefully take less time now.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a l
Austin S. Hemmelgarn posted on Mon, 25 Jun 2018 07:26:41 -0400 as
excerpted:
> On 2018-06-24 16:22, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
>> On 06/23/2018 07:11 AM, Duncan wrote:
>>> waxhead posted on Fri, 22 Jun 2018 01:13:31 +0200 as excerpted:
>>>
>>>> Accor
a/the main money product, whereas btrfs was always
something the btrfs devs used at their employers (oracle, facebook), who
have other things as their main product. As such, stratis is much more
likely to prioritize things like raid status monitors, hot-spares, etc,
that can be part of the product
Gandalf Corvotempesta posted on Wed, 20 Jun 2018 11:15:03 +0200 as
excerpted:
> Il giorno mer 20 giu 2018 alle ore 10:34 Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net>
> ha scritto:
>> Parity-raid is certainly nice, but mandatory, especially when there's
>> already other parity
se of the
system chunk size from 8 MB original mkfs.btrfs size to 32 MB... only a
few KiB used! =:^(
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
--
To unsubscribe
on what's in the rest of the stripe,
it could still affect files not otherwise written in some time. For
metadata, however, it's a huge deal, since an incorrectly reconstructed
metadata stripe could take out much or all of the filesystem, depending
on what metadata was actually in that stripe. This
've
already said you're not doing that in any form, but just in case, because
this is a rather obscure trap people using lvm could find themselves in,
without a clue as to the danger, and the resulting symptoms could be
rather hard to troubleshoot if this possibility wasn't considered.
--
Duncan
, anything even half modern should have it
fixed
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscrib
focus now and in many cases, should you
have problems, the first recommendation is going to be try something
newer and see if the problem goes away or presents differently. Or
as mentioned, check with your distro if it's a distro kernel, since
in that case they're best positioned to support it.
--
Dun
etween snapshots).
But if you're disabling checksumming anyway, nocow's likely the way to go.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
--
To unsubscribe from
kernels
that don't have the required compression support.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
>> and 'rust-btrfs' do the same as duperemove and simply report the error
>>> (as they should).
> --D
>
>> } else if (file->f_path.mnt != dst_file->f_path.mnt) {
>> info->status = -EXDEV;
>> } else i
ead-modify-write atomicity
issue. I'll leave the parity-checksumming debate (now that I know it at
least remains debatable) to those more knowledgeable than myself, but in
addition to what I've learned of it, I've definitely learned that I can't
properly conflate it with the in-place stripe-rmw a
Gandalf Corvotempesta posted on Wed, 02 May 2018 19:25:41 + as
excerpted:
> On 05/02/2018 03:47 AM, Duncan wrote:
>> Meanwhile, have you looked at zfs? Perhaps they have something like
>> that?
>
> Yes, i've looked at ZFS and I'm using it on some servers but I don
g it's a viable project, presumably it would get support if device-
mapper did/has.
The stratis article I saw (apparently part 2 in a series):
https://opensource.com/article/18/4/stratis-lessons-learned
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a
for
sanity checking.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
if you
have to.
---
[1] In general: I think one regular btrfs dev works with SuSE, and one
non-dev but well-practiced support list regular is most familiar with
Fedora, tho of course Fedora doesn't to be /too/ outdated.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfre
heavy rewrite along with the long testing and bugfix
cycle that implies, so ~10 years out if ever, for that. And there's a
couple intermediate alternatives as well, but unless something changes I
don't really see them going anywhere.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Eve
David Sterba posted on Wed, 25 Apr 2018 13:02:34 +0200 as excerpted:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 06:31:20AM +0000, Duncan wrote:
>> David Sterba posted on Tue, 24 Apr 2018 13:58:57 +0200 as excerpted:
>>
>> > btrfs-progs version 4.16.1 have been released. This
de
that's specifically billed as a "bugfix release".
(Further support for btrfs being "still stabilizing, not yet fully stable
and mature." But development mode habits need to end /sometime/, if
stability is indeed a goal.)
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No H
re nominally 1 GiB
so that's probably three 1 GiB chunks allocated, with 2.24 GiB of it used.
By contrast, your in-trouble fi usage report will show (near) 0
unallocated and a ***HUGE*** gap between size/total and used for data,
while you should be easily able to get per-device data totals down to s
l is a few years old, IIRC (I have 850s, and I think I saw 860s
out in something I read probably on this list, but am not sure of it). I
suspect the filesystem was created with an old enough btrfs-tools that
the default nodesize was still 4K, either due to older distro, or simply
due to using
tely a tradeoff to consider once you /do/ know it!
Presumably that'll be fixed at some point, but not being a dev nor
knowing how complex the fix might be, I won't venture a guess as to when,
or whether it'd be considered stable-kernel backport material or not,
when it happens.
--
Duncan - List replies pre
TS are best supported, so with
4.15 out and 4.16 nearing release, that's the latest 4.15 stable release
now, or 4.14, to be 4.16 and 4.15 at 4.16 release, or on the LTS track
the previously mentioned 4.14 and 4.9 series, tho at a year old plus, 4.9
is already getting rather harder to support, and 4.14 is ol
c initr*
and kernel modules would likely need more space, but your show output
says it's only using 342 MiB for data, so as I said your 1 GiB for ~500
MiB usable in dup mode should be quite reasonable.)
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord,
the latest release and watch for reports of problems with the
latest, but certainly, with 4.15 userspace out and no serious reports of
new damage from 4.14 userspace, the latter should now be a reasonably
safe upgrade.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree pro
p on a different set
of physical devices means I don't have to worry about loss of the
filesystem or physical devices containing it, either! =:^)
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master.&q
yet /entirely/ out of hand, either, because a successful guess
based on available information should be possible without /too/ many
attempts.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is
rfs is a possibility as well, but nocow on btrfs has enough
limits and caveats that I consider it a second-class "really should have
used a different filesystem for this but didn't want to bother setting up
a dedicated one" choice, and as such, don't consider it a viable option
here.
-
y newly created files/
subdirs within it.
[2] Many apps that preallocate by default have an option to turn
preallocation off.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallma
e file, and a recent "bugfix" changed that so it's more in line with
the normal autodefrag behavior. I rather preferred the old behavior,
especially since I'm on fast ssd and all my large files tend to be write-
once no-rewrite anyway, but I understand the performance implications on
large
ry purpose is
telling you in detail what space files take up, per-file and per-
directory, without particular regard to usage on the filesystem itself.
df's focus, by contrast, is on the filesystem as a whole. So where two
files share the same extent due to reflinking, du should and does coun
ffect could
still be creating problems on the 4.14 kernel servers for the moment.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
--
To unsubscribe from this list: sen
anted you could do the same with -musage for metadata,
except that's not so bad, only 9 gig size, 3 gig used. But you could
free 5 gigs or so, if desired.
That's assuming there's no problem. I see a followup indicating you're
seeing problems in dmesg with a balance, however, and will let others
en numbers were for level 1 and 2, with level 0 not holding
anything, not levels 0 and 1. But that wouldn't jive with your level 0
example, which I would assume could never happen if it couldn't hold even
a single entry.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonf
.13 series and early 4.14-rcs and was fixed
by 4.14.0. The bug seemed to trigger most frequently when doing balances
or other major writes to the filesystem, on middle to large sized
filesystems. (My all under quarter-TB each btrfs didn't appear to be
affected.)
--
Duncan - List replies
u're not trying to use the "archive application"
targeted SMR drives for general purpose use. Occasionally people will
try to buy and use such drives in general purpose use due to their
cheaper per-TB cost, and it just doesn't go well. We've had a number of
reports of that. =:^(
--
Duncan posted on Fri, 02 Feb 2018 02:49:52 + as excerpted:
> As CMurphy says, 4.11-ish is starting to be reasonable. But you're on
> the LTS kernel 4.14 series and userspace 4.14 was developed in parallel,
> so btrfs-progs-3.14 would be ideal.
Umm... obviously that shoul
time trying to recover data from a messed up filesystem, especially given
that there's no guarantee you'll get it all back undamaged even if you
/do/ spend time time. It's often simpler and takes less time, as well as
more success-sure, to simply blow away the defective filesystem with a
fresh mkfs
Andrei Borzenkov posted on Sun, 28 Jan 2018 11:06:06 +0300 as excerpted:
> 27.01.2018 18:22, Duncan пишет:
>> Adam Borowski posted on Sat, 27 Jan 2018 14:26:41 +0100 as excerpted:
>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 12:06:19PM +0100, Tomasz Pala wrote:
>>>> On
d has to do is leave the mount alone that the kernel has
already done, instead of insisting it knows what's going on better than
the kernel does, and immediately umounting it.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use
ain system's aging too, so I better start thinking of
replacing it again...)
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
ein posted on Tue, 23 Jan 2018 09:38:13 +0100 as excerpted:
> On 01/22/2018 09:59 AM, Duncan wrote:
>>
>> And to tie up a loose end, xfs has somewhat different design principles
>> and may well not be particularly sensitive to the dirty_* settings,
>> while btrfs,
ence. =:^)
And to tie up a loose end, xfs has somewhat different design principles
and may well not be particularly sensitive to the dirty_* settings, while
btrfs, due to COW and other design choices, is likely more sensitive to
them than the widely used ext* and reiserfs (my old choice and th
consider a layered approach, with btrfs raid1 on top of a pair of mdraid0s
(or dmraid0s, or hardware raid0s).
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
--
To unsub
what you are seeing. =:^) If
that's the case, then arguably the option is misnamed and the ssd_spread
name may well at some point be deprecated in favor of something more
descriptive of its actual function and target devices. Purely my own
speculation here, but perhaps something like vla_spread (very-l
d the like to clean up.
And qgroups makes btrfs do much more work to track that as well, so as Qu
says, that'll make snapshot deletion take even longer, and you probably
want it disabled unless you actually need the feature for something
you're doing.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTM
il-overs to the backups
and recycles the previous working filesystem devices, so a balance or a
check taking three years isn't an issue because they don't tend to run
those sorts of commands in the first place.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree p
else (hardware, software layers other than the filesystem) may be in use.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "u
riately and ensure they're done before
starting the next task.
And keep in mind the scheduled tasks when running things manually, so as
not to collide there either.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the p
as,
-fno-something, IIRC.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs&q
id layout or checking and trying to repair a filesystem that won't
mount. Since normal runtime performance isn't particularly affected,
quotas tend to be fine for such use-cases.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the
of mdraid0s (or alike,
dmraid0s, hardware raid0s, etc), since that performs better than btrfs
raid10, and removes a confusing tho not harmful if properly understood
layout ambiguity of btrfs raid10 as well.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has
e technical
skill, but would be far more likely to just accept the damage as reality
and fall back to the backups such as they are, than actually invest the
time in either getting that fix or knowing for sure that it /can't/ be
fixed.
The signature I've seen, something about the unreasonable man
lling back to backup and redoing the filesystem from scratch is
simpler/faster and more reliable than trying to balance to a different
btrfs layout or check their way out of trouble.
[3] Ionicing btrfs balance kernel worker threads: Simplest would be to
have balance take parameters fo
t required, as I know, because I had
dracut setup without the systemd module for some time after I switched to
systemd for my main sysinit, and I verified it didn't install systemd in
the initr* until I activated the systemd module.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every
esources necessary to do them, and some day, maybe 10 minutes from now,
maybe 10 years from now, fate's going to call you on that definition!
(Yes, I know /you/ know that or we'd not have this thread, which
demonstrates that you /do/ care about your data. But it's as much about
the lurk
bug there would still be in the concern for a
fix range, while 4.4... really is just out of the focus range for this
list, tho various longer focus distros will of course still provide
support for it.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a l
ice=, but that's simply
dangerous for routine use regardless of whether it actually assembled or
not, thus effectively forcing an initr* for multi-device btrfs root in
ordered to get it mounted properly.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord,
1 - 100 of 1780 matches
Mail list logo
