> I'd like to see how they do that. The fact is you are still going to get
> random
> seeks since you have to binary search the blocks in an entire row since
> there is
> no way you can read a several thousand block row into memory to search it,
> so
> once your rows get pretty big you are doing j
>
> You are still going to have to have at least 29 levels to accomodate 1
> billion
> objects, though they won't all be full (sorry I missed the must be full or
> empty
> bit). So it looks like we'll have to actually search what 13 rows right?
> So
> still more rows than a b-tree, and again you
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 04:21:31PM +0100, Niels de Carpentier wrote:
>> > The plan that occurs to me is to make a snapshot of the system in the
>> > state that I want to always boot. Then, I would rewrite the init
>> > script in the initrd to (a) delete any old tmp
> The plan that occurs to me is to make a snapshot of the system in the
> state that I want to always boot. Then, I would rewrite the init
> script in the initrd to (a) delete any old tmp copy of the snapshot;
> (b) copy the static snapshot to a tmp copy; (c) mount the tmp copy.
>
> That's a littl
> Hi,
>
> One of my disks, partitioned into a single btrfs partition, is showing
> media errors. The problem is that these errors lead to kernel panic from
> btrfs - that make the filesystem unusable until reboot - and therefore
> it is very hard for me to do a full backup of the data prior to chan
> On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Niels de Carpentier
> wrote:
>>>> ... and depending on which SSD you use, it shouldn't matter. Really.
>>>>
>>>> Last time I tried with sandforce SSD + btrfs + -o discard, forcing
>>>> trim actual
>> ... and depending on which SSD you use, it shouldn't matter. Really.
>>
>> Last time I tried with sandforce SSD + btrfs + -o discard, forcing
>> trim actually made things slower. Sandforce (and probably other modern
>> SSD) controllers can work just fine even without explicit trim fs
>> support.
>> How is this advantageous over dmcrypt-LUKS?
>
> For example mixing encrypted and not encrypted subvolumes in one pool.
> And not having to separately cryptsetup luksOpen all disks consisting
> filesystem.
> There are advantages of FDE like dm-crypt and selective encryption like
> in ZFS.
I
> It seems I trust the web pages too much - in http://zfsonlinux.org/ is
> written that it does not ;O)) otherwise I would be using it already.
>From the website:
Please keep in mind the current 0.5.2 stable release does not yet support
a mountable filesystem. This functionality is currently avai
>> For btrfs bugs are still fixed on a daily basis, and some reports of
>> people with corrupted and unrecoverable filesystems.
>
> I don't know that there's been any actual unrecoverable filesystems
> recently; unmountable is by far the more common issue, and given that
> most sane people aren't p
>>
>> You mean like "zfs send -i"? If yes, why not just use zfs? There's
>> zfsonlinux project, with easy-to-install ppa for ubuntu. Or you could
>> compile it manually.
>>
> Thank you for your suggestion. As I know, there is not everything ported
> yet, and one of the missing important features I
11 matches
Mail list logo
