Am Sat, 25 Feb 2012 20:05:13 -0800
schrieb Fahrzin Hemmati :
> No, at least not yet, nor am I aware of any plans for subvolume
> quotas, though I could be wrong.
Arne Jansen is working on it, IIRC.
regards,
Johannes
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
On Sunday 26 February 2012 19:52:06 Duncan wrote:
> It's astonishing to me the number of people that come in here
> complaining about problems with a filesystem the kernel option of
> which says
>
> Title:
>
> Btrfs filesystem (EXPERIMENTAL) Unstable disk format
On the other hand, if they didn
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 6:50 PM, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> Is 2010-06-01 really the last time the tools were considered
> stable or are Ubuntu just being conservative and/or lazy about updating?
The last one :)
Or probably no one has bugged them enough and point out they're
already using a git s
On 12-02-26 06:00 AM, Hugo Mills wrote:
>
>The option that nobody's mentioned yet is to use mixed mode. This
> is the -M or --mixed option when you create the filesystem. It's
> designed specifically for small filesystems, and removes the
> data/metadata split for more efficient packing.
Cool
On 02/26/2012 12:05 PM, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On 12-02-26 02:52 PM, Daniel Lee wrote:
>> What's mysterious about that?
> What's mysterious about needing to grow the filesystem to over 20GB to
> unpack 10MB of (small, so yes, many) files?
>> When you shrink it btrfs is going to throw
>> away unu
On 12-02-26 02:52 PM, Daniel Lee wrote:
> What's mysterious about that?
What's mysterious about needing to grow the filesystem to over 20GB to
unpack 10MB of (small, so yes, many) files?
> When you shrink it btrfs is going to throw
> away unused data to cram it all in the requested space and you
On 02/26/2012 11:48 AM, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
On 12-02-26 02:37 PM, Daniel Lee wrote:
3.22GB + (896MB * 2) = 5GB
There's no mystery here, you're simply out of space.
Except the mystery that I had to expand the filesystem to something
between 20GB and 50GB in order to complete the operation,
On 12-02-26 02:19 AM, Jérôme Poulin wrote:
>
> What would be interesting is getting an eye on btrfs fi df of your
> filesystem to see what part is getting full, or maybe just do a
> balance.
I did try a balance. As I had mentioned subsequently, I ended up having
to grow the filesystem to 10x (so
On 12-02-26 02:37 PM, Daniel Lee wrote:
> 3.22GB + (896MB * 2) = 5GB
>
> There's no mystery here, you're simply out of space.
Except the mystery that I had to expand the filesystem to something
between 20GB and 50GB in order to complete the operation, after which I
could reduce it back down to 5G
On 02/25/2012 05:55 PM, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
$ btrfs filesystem df /usr
Data: total=3.22GB, used=3.22GB
System, DUP: total=8.00MB, used=4.00KB
System: total=4.00MB, used=0.00
Metadata, DUP: total=896.00MB, used=251.62MB
Metadata: total=8.00MB, used=0.00
I don't know if that's useful or not.
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 06:10:32PM -0800, Fahrzin Hemmati wrote:
> btrfs is horrible for small filesystems (like a 5GB drive). df -h
> says you have 967MB available, but btrfs (at least by default)
> allocates 1GB at a time to data/metadata. This means that your 10MB
> file is too big for the curre
Helmut Hullen posted on Sun, 26 Feb 2012 10:10:00 +0100 as excerpted:
> Just take a look at Fedora.
> The maintainers had planned to use btrfs as standard filesystem for
> Fedora 16 (but haven't done so), they had planned to use btrfs for
> Fedora 17, but perhaps hesitate, see
>
> https://fedor
Hallo, Duncan,
Du meintest am 26.02.12:
> It's astonishing to me the number of people that come in here
> complaining about problems with a filesystem the kernel option of
> which says
> Title:
> Btrfs filesystem (EXPERIMENTAL) Unstable disk format
> Description (excerpt):
> Btrfs is highly e
Fahrzin Hemmati posted on Sat, 25 Feb 2012 18:37:24 -0800 as excerpted:
> On 2/25/2012 6:16 PM, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
>>> Others might know of a way of changing the allocation size to less
>>> than 1GB, but otherwise I recommend switching to something more stable
>>> like ext4/reiserfs/etc.
>>
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 1:14 AM, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
>
> # btrfs fi resize 5G /usr; df -h /usr
> Resize '/usr' of '5G'
What would be interesting is getting an eye on btrfs fi df of your
filesystem to see what part is getting full, or maybe just do a
balance.
I have been running 3.0.0 for qu
On 12-02-26 12:45 AM, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
>
> So I guess I need a 50G btrfs filesystem for 2.8G worth of data?
Interestingly enough, I was able to resize the filesystem back down to
5G after all of that:
# btrfs fi resize 5G /usr; df -h /usr
Resize '/usr' of '5G'
FilesystemSize
On 2/25/2012 9:45 PM, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
On 12-02-25 09:10 PM, Fahrzin Hemmati wrote:
btrfs is horrible for small filesystems (like a 5GB drive). df -h says
you have 967MB available, but btrfs (at least by default) allocates 1GB
at a time to data/metadata. This means that your 10MB file is
On 12-02-25 09:10 PM, Fahrzin Hemmati wrote:
> btrfs is horrible for small filesystems (like a 5GB drive). df -h says
> you have 967MB available, but btrfs (at least by default) allocates 1GB
> at a time to data/metadata. This means that your 10MB file is too big
> for the current allocation and re
On 2/25/2012 7:57 PM, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
On 12-02-25 09:37 PM, Fahrzin Hemmati wrote:
Nope, still in heavy development, though you should upgrade to 3.2.
I recall being told I should upgrade to 2.6.36 (or was it .37 or .38) at
one time. Seems like one should always upgrade. :-/
It's a ne
On 12-02-25 09:37 PM, Fahrzin Hemmati wrote:
>
> Nope, still in heavy development, though you should upgrade to 3.2.
I recall being told I should upgrade to 2.6.36 (or was it .37 or .38) at
one time. Seems like one should always upgrade. :-/
> Also, the devs mentioned in several places it's not
On 2/25/2012 6:16 PM, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
Others might know of a way of changing the allocation size to less than
1GB, but otherwise I recommend switching to something more stable like
ext4/reiserfs/etc.
So btrfs is still not yet suitable to be a root/usr/var filesystem, even
in kernel 3.0.0
On 12-02-25 09:10 PM, Fahrzin Hemmati wrote:
> btrfs is horrible for small filesystems (like a 5GB drive). df -h says
> you have 967MB available,
So does dd. It manages to write that 967MB before getting an ENOSPC.
> but btrfs (at least by default) allocates 1GB
> at a time to data/metadata.
Bl
btrfs is horrible for small filesystems (like a 5GB drive). df -h says
you have 967MB available, but btrfs (at least by default) allocates 1GB
at a time to data/metadata. This means that your 10MB file is too big
for the current allocation and requires a new data chunk, or another
1GB, which yo
I have a 5G /usr btrfs filesystem on a 3.0.0-12-generic kernel that is
returning ENOSPC when it's only 75% full:
FilesystemSize Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/mapper/rootvol-mint_usr
5.0G 2.8G 967M 75% /usr
And yet I can't even unpack a linux-headers package
24 matches
Mail list logo
