On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 4:10 PM Austin S. Hemmelgarn
wrote:
> Also, once you've got the space cache set up by mounting once writable
> with the appropriate flag and then waiting for it to initialize, you
> should not ever need to specify the `space_cache` option again.
True.
I am not sure why I
Austin S. Hemmelgarn posted on Wed, 22 Aug 2018 07:30:09 -0400 as
excerpted:
>> Meanwhile, since broken rootflags requiring an initr* came up let me
>> take the opportunity to ask once again, does btrfs-raid1 root still
>> require an initr*? It'd be /so/ nice to be able to supply the
>>
On 2018-08-22 11:01, David Sterba wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 09:56:59AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2018-08-22 09:48, David Sterba wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 01:01:00PM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2018-08-21 12:05, David Sterba wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 09:56:59AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> On 2018-08-22 09:48, David Sterba wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 01:01:00PM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> >> On 2018-08-21 12:05, David Sterba wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 10:10:04AM -0400, Austin S.
On 2018-08-22 09:48, David Sterba wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 01:01:00PM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2018-08-21 12:05, David Sterba wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 10:10:04AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2018-08-21 09:32, Janos Toth F. wrote:
so pretty much everyone who
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 01:01:00PM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> On 2018-08-21 12:05, David Sterba wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 10:10:04AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> >> On 2018-08-21 09:32, Janos Toth F. wrote:
> >> so pretty much everyone who wants to avoid the overhead
On 2018-08-21 23:57, Duncan wrote:
Austin S. Hemmelgarn posted on Tue, 21 Aug 2018 13:01:00 -0400 as
excerpted:
Otherwise, the only option for people who want it set is to patch the
kernel to get noatime as the default (instead of relatime). I would
look at pushing such a patch upstream
Austin S. Hemmelgarn posted on Tue, 21 Aug 2018 13:01:00 -0400 as
excerpted:
> Otherwise, the only option for people who want it set is to patch the
> kernel to get noatime as the default (instead of relatime). I would
> look at pushing such a patch upstream myself actually, if it weren't for
>
On 2018-08-21 12:05, David Sterba wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 10:10:04AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2018-08-21 09:32, Janos Toth F. wrote:
so pretty much everyone who wants to avoid the overhead from them can just
use the `noatime` mount option.
It would be great if someone
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 10:10:04AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> On 2018-08-21 09:32, Janos Toth F. wrote:
> so pretty much everyone who wants to avoid the overhead from them can
> just
> use the `noatime` mount option.
> >
> > It would be great if someone finally fixed
On 2018-08-21 09:32, Janos Toth F. wrote:
so pretty much everyone who wants to avoid the overhead from them can just
use the `noatime` mount option.
It would be great if someone finally fixed this old bug then:
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=61601
Until then, it seems practically
> >> so pretty much everyone who wants to avoid the overhead from them can just
> >> use the `noatime` mount option.
It would be great if someone finally fixed this old bug then:
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=61601
Until then, it seems practically impossible to use both noatime
On 2018-08-21 08:06, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 08:16:16AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
Also, slightly OT, but atimes are not where the real benefit is here for
most people. No sane software other than mutt uses atimes (and mutt's use
of them is not sane, but that's a
On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 08:16:16AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> Also, slightly OT, but atimes are not where the real benefit is here for
> most people. No sane software other than mutt uses atimes (and mutt's use
> of them is not sane, but that's a different argument)
Right. There are
On 2018-08-19 06:25, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
Отправлено с iPhone
19 авг. 2018 г., в 11:37, Martin Steigerwald написал(а):
waxhead - 18.08.18, 22:45:
Adam Hunt wrote:
Back in 2014 Ted Tso introduced the lazytime mount option for ext4
and shortly thereafter a more generic VFS
Отправлено с iPhone
> 19 авг. 2018 г., в 11:37, Martin Steigerwald написал(а):
>
> waxhead - 18.08.18, 22:45:
>> Adam Hunt wrote:
>>> Back in 2014 Ted Tso introduced the lazytime mount option for ext4
>>> and shortly thereafter a more generic VFS implementation which was
>>> then merged into
waxhead - 18.08.18, 22:45:
> Adam Hunt wrote:
> > Back in 2014 Ted Tso introduced the lazytime mount option for ext4
> > and shortly thereafter a more generic VFS implementation which was
> > then merged into mainline. His early patches included support for
> > Btrfs but those changes were removed
Adam Hunt wrote:
Back in 2014 Ted Tso introduced the lazytime mount option for ext4 and
shortly thereafter a more generic VFS implementation which was then
merged into mainline. His early patches included support for Btrfs but
those changes were removed prior to the feature being merged. His
On 2017-08-13 07:50, Adam Hunt wrote:
Back in 2014 Ted Tso introduced the lazytime mount option for ext4 and
shortly thereafter a more generic VFS implementation which was then
merged into mainline. His early patches included support for Btrfs but
those changes were removed prior to the feature
Back in 2014 Ted Tso introduced the lazytime mount option for ext4 and
shortly thereafter a more generic VFS implementation which was then
merged into mainline. His early patches included support for Btrfs but
those changes were removed prior to the feature being merged. His
changelog includes
20 matches
Mail list logo
