On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 07:34:06PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
What is the status of fixing the limits of hardlinks in BTRFS?
It is now easy to hit on Debian systems that have git package installed:
I too wonder if there still is an intention to fix this... I'd expect
to see much more
Hello,
Am Freitag, 6. August 2010 schrieb Chris Mason:
On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 02:30:39PM +0300, Sami Liedes wrote:
On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 12:22:14AM +0200, Oystein Viggen wrote:
IIRC, the limit on hard links is per directory. That is, if you
put each hard link into its own directory,
On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 02:30:39PM +0300, Sami Liedes wrote:
On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 12:22:14AM +0200, Oystein Viggen wrote:
IIRC, the limit on hard links is per directory. That is, if you put
each hard link into its own directory, there's basically no limit to the
amount of hard links you
Hi,
There's been discussion before on this list on the very small number
of hard links supported by btrfs.[1][2] In those threads, an often
asked question has been if there's a real world use case the limit
breaks. Also it has been pointed out that a fix for this would need a
disk format change.
Le 02 août 2010 à 14:40, Sami Liedes a écrit:
[BTRFS supports only 256 hard-links per directory ...] but if it
indeed needs a disk format change, I think this should be considered
before the format is set in stone. I won't personally lose my sleep if
this is not fixed - I can use other
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 15:05:56 +0200, Xavier Nicollet nicol...@jeru.org
wrote:
Le 02 août 2010 à 14:40, Sami Liedes a écrit:
[BTRFS supports only 256 hard-links per directory ...] but if it
indeed needs a disk format change, I think this should be considered
before the format is set in stone. I
Also, I believe it's not strictly 256 links, it's dependent on the length
of the names.
I recall Chris posting something about being able to fix this without a
format change, though it wasn't a priority yet.
As to my knowledge the limit is 64KB for all names of a single file and due to
Michael Niederle wrote:
Also, I believe it's not strictly 256 links, it's dependent on the length
of the names.
I recall Chris posting something about being able to fix this without a
format change, though it wasn't a priority yet.
As to my knowledge the limit is 64KB for all names of a
* [Roberto Ragusa]
That means it would not work for my backup server.
At 4 backups per day, failure for filenames with 45 characters after just
one year.
IIRC, the limit on hard links is per directory. That is, if you put
each hard link into its own directory, there's basically no limit to
