On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 10:12:20PM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
> On 2 October 2013 13:52, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 10:13:25PM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
> >> On 1 October 2013 21:42, Aastha Mehta wrote:
> >> > On 1 October 2013 21:40, Aastha Mehta wrote:
> >> >> On 1 October
On 2 October 2013 13:52, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 10:13:25PM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
>> On 1 October 2013 21:42, Aastha Mehta wrote:
>> > On 1 October 2013 21:40, Aastha Mehta wrote:
>> >> On 1 October 2013 19:34, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> >>> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 11:07:20
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 10:13:25PM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
> On 1 October 2013 21:42, Aastha Mehta wrote:
> > On 1 October 2013 21:40, Aastha Mehta wrote:
> >> On 1 October 2013 19:34, Josef Bacik wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 11:07:20PM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
> On 30 Septembe
On 1 October 2013 21:42, Aastha Mehta wrote:
> On 1 October 2013 21:40, Aastha Mehta wrote:
>> On 1 October 2013 19:34, Josef Bacik wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 11:07:20PM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
On 30 September 2013 22:47, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 10:30:5
On 1 October 2013 21:40, Aastha Mehta wrote:
> On 1 October 2013 19:34, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 11:07:20PM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
>>> On 30 September 2013 22:47, Josef Bacik wrote:
>>> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 10:30:59PM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
>>> >> On 30 Septembe
On 1 October 2013 19:34, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 11:07:20PM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
>> On 30 September 2013 22:47, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 10:30:59PM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
>> >> On 30 September 2013 22:11, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> >> > On Mon, Se
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 11:07:20PM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
> On 30 September 2013 22:47, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 10:30:59PM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
> >> On 30 September 2013 22:11, Josef Bacik wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 09:32:54PM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 11:07:20PM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
> On 30 September 2013 22:47, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 10:30:59PM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
> >> On 30 September 2013 22:11, Josef Bacik wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 09:32:54PM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
On 30 September 2013 22:47, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 10:30:59PM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
>> On 30 September 2013 22:11, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 09:32:54PM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
>> >> On 29 September 2013 15:12, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> >> > On Sun,
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 10:30:59PM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
> On 30 September 2013 22:11, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 09:32:54PM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
> >> On 29 September 2013 15:12, Josef Bacik wrote:
> >> > On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 11:22:36AM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
On 30 September 2013 22:11, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 09:32:54PM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
>> On 29 September 2013 15:12, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> > On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 11:22:36AM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
>> >> Thank you very much for the reply. That clarifies a lot of thin
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 09:32:54PM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
> On 29 September 2013 15:12, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 11:22:36AM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
> >> Thank you very much for the reply. That clarifies a lot of things.
> >>
> >> I was trying a small test case that ope
On 29 September 2013 15:12, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 11:22:36AM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
>> Thank you very much for the reply. That clarifies a lot of things.
>>
>> I was trying a small test case that opens a file, writes a block of
>> data, calls fsync and then closes the fi
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 11:22:36AM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
> Thank you very much for the reply. That clarifies a lot of things.
>
> I was trying a small test case that opens a file, writes a block of
> data, calls fsync and then closes the file. If I understand correctly,
> fsync would return o
Thank you very much for the reply. That clarifies a lot of things.
I was trying a small test case that opens a file, writes a block of
data, calls fsync and then closes the file. If I understand correctly,
fsync would return only after all in-memory buffers have been
committed to disk. I have adde
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 01:35:15AM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have few questions regarding logging triggered by calling fsync in BTRFS:
>
> 1. If I understand correctly, fsync will call to log entire inode in
> the log tree. Does this mean that the data extents are also logged
> into
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 01:46:23AM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
> I am using linux kernel 3.1.10-1.16, just to let you know.
Not that it invalidates the questions below, but that's a really
old kernel. You should update to something recent (3.11, or 3.12-rc2)
as soon as possible. There are major
I am using linux kernel 3.1.10-1.16, just to let you know.
Thanks
On 29 September 2013 01:35, Aastha Mehta wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have few questions regarding logging triggered by calling fsync in BTRFS:
>
> 1. If I understand correctly, fsync will call to log entire inode in
> the log tree. Does th
18 matches
Mail list logo