@hugo
iirc that was on ~3.0.8 but it might have been 3.0.0. I'll revisit
the raid0 setup on a newer kernel series and test though before making
any more claims. :)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More
Sorry, I meant 'removing 2 drives' in the raid1 with 3 drives example
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Wes wrote:
> I've noticed similar behavior when even RAID0'ing an odd number of
> devices which should be even more trivial in practice.
> You would expect some
I've noticed similar behavior when even RAID0'ing an odd number of
devices which should be even more trivial in practice.
You would expect something like:
sda A1 B1
sdb A2 B2
sdc A3 B3
or at least, if BTRFS can only handle block pairs,
sda A1 B2
sdb A2 C1
sdc B1 C2
But the end result was that
> I don't know much of what goes on inside BtrFS, but I like to point
> out that btrfs fi df doesn't actually report total space on the disk,
> only the total space currently allocated.
Good point, and this also supports the notion that it's more of a 'du'
work-alike than a 'df' one
--
To unsubsc
Just wondering,
Why is this command called 'df' when it reports total space and used
space but not free space? Wouldn't this be more aptly named 'btrfs
filesystem du' ?
It's been my understanding that traditionally 'df' has been to display
free space remaining (as well as total available and use
be atomic. See TxFlash:
http://storagemojo.com/2009/01/17/transflash/
Wes Felter - wes...@felter.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
