Christoph Anton Mitterer posted on Tue, 07 Jul 2015 03:03:25 +0200 as
excerpted:
> Well I haven't looked into any code, so the following is just
> perception: It seemed that send/receive itself has always worked
> correctly for me so far.
> I.e. I ran some complete diff -qr over the source and tar
On Tue, 2015-07-07 at 00:47 +, Duncan wrote:
> The interaction between send/receive and subvolumes/snapshots
> is also a problem, but again, not so much on the subvolume/snapshot
> side, as on the send/receive side.
Well I haven't looked into any code, so the following is just
perception:
It
Christoph Anton Mitterer posted on Mon, 06 Jul 2015 20:40:23 +0200 as
excerpted:
> After removing some of the snapshots that were received, the errors at
> btrfs check went away.
>
> Is there some list of features in btrfs which are considered stable?
> Cause I though send/receive and the subvolu
After removing some of the snapshots that were received, the errors at
btrfs check went away.
Is there some list of features in btrfs which are considered stable?
Cause I though send/receive and the subvolumes would be, but apparently
this doesn't seem to be the case :-/
Cheers,
Chris.
smime.p
Hi.
This is on a btrfs created and used with a 4.0 kernel.
Not much was done on it, apart from send/receive snapshots from another
btrfs (with -p).
Some of the older snapshots (that were used as parents before) have
been removed in the meantime).
Now a btrfs check gives this:
# btrfs check /dev/
