Re: Ideas for btrfs-convert fix(or rework)

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 02:27:41PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > [[FIX IDEA]] > 1. Too many patches Not percieved as a problem as long as the patches are well separated and reviewable. If you prefer reasonably many preparatory and trivial patches, then be it. > 2. superblock reserve is d*mning hard,

Re: Ideas for btrfs-convert fix(or rework)

David Sterba wrote on 2015/11/16 18:46 +0100: On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 02:27:41PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: [[FIX IDEA]] 1. Too many patches Not percieved as a problem as long as the patches are well separated and reviewable. If you prefer reasonably many preparatory and trivial patches, then

Re: Ideas for btrfs-convert fix(or rework)

[ resending as it didnt get through. ] I got different opinion. btrfs-convert is something that brought me to btrfs. While there are other bugs to fix, someone dedicating time to fix btrfs-convert is of high interest to me. Sending right message to community, might make some rolling distros to

Re: Ideas for btrfs-convert fix(or rework)

Austin S Hemmelgarn posted on Thu, 12 Nov 2015 09:38:03 -0500 as excerpted: > I'm not arguing that [btrfs-convert] should just go away, I'm trying to > argue that it shouldn't be a development priority if it works correctly. Agreed. If you go back to my reply that started this subthread, the

Re: Ideas for btrfs-convert fix(or rework)

On 2015-11-12 09:09, Roman Mamedov wrote: On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 08:27:49 -0500 Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: know of (Arch and Gentoo), because the very fact that you installed a system with either one means that you are fully capable of backing up your data, and

Re: Ideas for btrfs-convert fix(or rework)

On 2015-11-12 05:23, Vytautas D wrote: [ resending as it didnt get through. ] I got different opinion. btrfs-convert is something that brought me to btrfs. While there are other bugs to fix, someone dedicating time to fix btrfs-convert is of high interest to me. Sending right message to

Re: Ideas for btrfs-convert fix(or rework)

On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 08:27:49 -0500 Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: > know of (Arch and Gentoo), because the very fact that you installed a > system with either one means that you are fully capable of backing up > your data, and reprovisioning the system using BTRFS instead of

Re: Ideas for btrfs-convert fix(or rework)

On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:16:26 +0800 Qu Wenruo wrote: > So if things are correct, the btrfs you converted should still be in > mixed-bg mode. > A recent 'btrfs fi df' command should show things like: > Data+Metadata, DUP: total=512.00MiB, used=68.23MiB Actually not quite.

Re: Ideas for btrfs-convert fix(or rework)

Qu Wenruo posted on Tue, 10 Nov 2015 17:18:02 +0800 as excerpted: > Yes, some problem can be fixed by such balance, as after balance, data > and metadata will be relocated to correct new chunks. > > But there may be a lot of hidden bugs here. > And we can't ignore such malfunction just because

Re: Ideas for btrfs-convert fix(or rework)

Roman Mamedov wrote on 2015/11/10 14:08 +0500: On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:16:26 +0800 Qu Wenruo wrote: So if things are correct, the btrfs you converted should still be in mixed-bg mode. A recent 'btrfs fi df' command should show things like: Data+Metadata, DUP:

Re: Ideas for btrfs-convert fix(or rework)

Roman Mamedov wrote on 2015/11/10 12:55 +0500: On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 14:27:41 +0800 Qu Wenruo wrote: But without such work, btrfs-convert will always be a mess and no real support for balance. I wonder, what happened to the current btrfs-convert? Perhaps a

Ideas for btrfs-convert fix(or rework)

Hi all, Someone may already knows, I'm recently trying to fix(or rework) the old btrfs-convert, to allow it to support separate data and meta chunks. [[FIX IDEA]] The overall idea is quite simple and straight forward: Separate meta/sys chunk at very *beginning*, then insert data chunks to

Re: Ideas for btrfs-convert fix(or rework)

On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 14:27:41 +0800 Qu Wenruo wrote: > But without such work, btrfs-convert will always be a mess and no > real support for balance. I wonder, what happened to the current btrfs-convert? Perhaps a couple of years ago I converted a 7TB and ~70%