At 06/25/2016 01:45 PM, Chandan Rajendra wrote:
On Saturday, June 25, 2016 09:22:44 AM Qu Wenruo wrote:
On 06/24/2016 05:29 PM, Chandan Rajendra wrote:
On Friday, June 24, 2016 10:50:41 AM Qu Wenruo wrote:
Hi Chandan, David,
When I'm trying to rebase dedupe patchset on top of Chadan's sub
On Saturday, June 25, 2016 09:22:44 AM Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
> On 06/24/2016 05:29 PM, Chandan Rajendra wrote:
> > On Friday, June 24, 2016 10:50:41 AM Qu Wenruo wrote:
> >> Hi Chandan, David,
> >>
> >> When I'm trying to rebase dedupe patchset on top of Chadan's sub page
> >> size patchset (using
On 06/24/2016 05:29 PM, Chandan Rajendra wrote:
On Friday, June 24, 2016 10:50:41 AM Qu Wenruo wrote:
Hi Chandan, David,
When I'm trying to rebase dedupe patchset on top of Chadan's sub page
size patchset (using David's for-next-test-20160620), although the
rebase itself is quite simple, but
On Friday, June 24, 2016 10:50:41 AM Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Hi Chandan, David,
>
> When I'm trying to rebase dedupe patchset on top of Chadan's sub page
> size patchset (using David's for-next-test-20160620), although the
> rebase itself is quite simple, but I'm afraid that I found some bugs for
>
On 06/24/2016 02:54 PM, Satoru Takeuchi wrote:
On 2016/06/22 10:48, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Here is the long-waited (simple and theoretical) performance test for dedupe.
Such result may be added to btrfs wiki page, as an advice for dedupe use case.
The full result can be check from google drive:
On 2016/06/22 10:48, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Here is the long-waited (simple and theoretical) performance test for dedupe.
>
> Such result may be added to btrfs wiki page, as an advice for dedupe use case.
>
> The full result can be check from google drive:
>
On Friday, June 24, 2016 10:50:41 AM Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Hi Chandan, David,
>
> When I'm trying to rebase dedupe patchset on top of Chadan's sub page
> size patchset (using David's for-next-test-20160620), although the
> rebase itself is quite simple, but I'm afraid that I found some bugs for
>
On Thursday, June 23, 2016 02:17:38 PM David Sterba wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 10:25:19PM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote:
> > > > I'm completely OK to do the rebase, but since I don't have 64K page
> > > > size
> > > > machine to test the rebase, we can only test if 4K system is unaffected.
Hi Chandan, David,
When I'm trying to rebase dedupe patchset on top of Chadan's sub page
size patchset (using David's for-next-test-20160620), although the
rebase itself is quite simple, but I'm afraid that I found some bugs for
sub page size patchset, *without* dedupe patchset applied.
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 10:25:19PM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote:
> > > I'm completely OK to do the rebase, but since I don't have 64K page size
> > > machine to test the rebase, we can only test if 4K system is unaffected.
> > >
> > > Although not much help, at least it would be better than
Here is the long-waited (simple and theoretical) performance test for
dedupe.
Such result may be added to btrfs wiki page, as an advice for dedupe use
case.
The full result can be check from google drive:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxpkL3ehzX3pb05WT1lZSnRGbjA/view?usp=sharing
[Short
On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 11:34:57 AM David Sterba wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 05:26:23PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> > > Yeah, but I'm now concerned about the way both will be integrated in the
> > > development or preview branches, not really the functionality itself.
> > >
> > > Now the
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 05:26:23PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> > Yeah, but I'm now concerned about the way both will be integrated in the
> > development or preview branches, not really the functionality itself.
> >
> > Now the conflicts are not trivial, so this takes extra time on my side
> > and I
At 06/21/2016 05:13 PM, David Sterba wrote:
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 08:36:49AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
I'm looking how well does this patchset merges with the rest, so far
there are excpected conflicts with Chandan's subpage-blocksize
patchset. For the easy parts, we can add stub patches to
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 08:36:49AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> > I'm looking how well does this patchset merges with the rest, so far
> > there are excpected conflicts with Chandan's subpage-blocksize
> > patchset. For the easy parts, we can add stub patches to extend
> > functions like
At 06/21/2016 12:03 AM, David Sterba wrote:
Hi,
I'm looking how well does this patchset merges with the rest, so far
there are excpected conflicts with Chandan's subpage-blocksize
patchset. For the easy parts, we can add stub patches to extend
functions like cow_file_range with parameters
Hi,
I'm looking how well does this patchset merges with the rest, so far
there are excpected conflicts with Chandan's subpage-blocksize
patchset. For the easy parts, we can add stub patches to extend
functions like cow_file_range with parameters that are added by the
other patch.
Honestly I
This patchset can be fetched from github:
https://github.com/adam900710/linux.git wang_dedupe_20160524
In this update, the patchset goes through another re-organization along
with other fixes to address comments from community.
1) Move on-disk backend and dedupe props out of the patchset
18 matches
Mail list logo
