Hi Chris,
Today I was checking the Kconfig option for btrfs and it still says,
"Btrfs filesystem (EXPERIMENTAL) Unstable disk format"
I remember that some time back we had discussion about this on meego-dev
mailing list:
http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org/msg04881.html
In ca
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:46:22AM +0300, Ameya Palande wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> Today I was checking the Kconfig option for btrfs and it still says,
> "Btrfs filesystem (EXPERIMENTAL) Unstable disk format"
>
> I remember that some time back we had discussion about this on meego-dev
> mailing list:
I decided to try btrfs on F13 (2.6.33.6-147.2.4.fc13.x86_64 kernel) with the
following fs_mark command and a 1.5 TB Seagate S-ATA disk:
# fs_mark -s 0 -S 0 -D 1000 -n 100 -L 1000 -d /test/ -l btrfs_log.txt
btrfs starts off at a fantastic rate - roughly 3-4 times the speed of ext4:
FSUse%
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:29:24AM -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote:
>
> I decided to try btrfs on F13 (2.6.33.6-147.2.4.fc13.x86_64 kernel)
> with the following fs_mark command and a 1.5 TB Seagate S-ATA disk:
>
> # fs_mark -s 0 -S 0 -D 1000 -n 100 -L 1000 -d /test/ -l btrfs_log.txt
>
> btrfs start
On 08/16/2010 08:37 AM, Chris Mason wrote:
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:29:24AM -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote:
I decided to try btrfs on F13 (2.6.33.6-147.2.4.fc13.x86_64 kernel)
with the following fs_mark command and a 1.5 TB Seagate S-ATA disk:
# fs_mark -s 0 -S 0 -D 1000 -n 100 -L 1000 -d /tes
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:46:22AM +0300, Ameya Palande wrote:
> > Hi Chris,
> >
> > Today I was checking the Kconfig option for btrfs and it still says,
> > "Btrfs filesystem (EXPERIMENTAL) Unstable disk format"
> >
> > I remember that some
Hi,
I've got a strange performance problem on my netbook.
This netbook has a 160g hd:
Model Family: Seagate Momentus 5400.5 series
Device Model: ST9160310AS
It's an Atom N270 with 1G ram.
Used kernel is 2.6.34, coming from arch linux.
Disk setup is:
One huge lvm volume which just prov
Hi,
> the other big question is:
>
> Is btrfs with 2.6.36 really rockstable and ready to use in
> productive environments?
No, certainly not until there's a working fsck tool -- at the moment
it's rather easy to kill a btrfs by just losing power.
I just added a paragraph to the main
I thought this would go to the list automatically.
Here it is now.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Evert Vorster
Date: Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 4:04 PM
Subject: Re: 2.6.36-rc1 btrfs still unstable
To: Chris Ball
I lost a btrfs not long ago, and this is the reason I am on this list.
From: Julia Lawall
Error codes are stored in ret, but the return value is always 0. Return
ret instead.
The semantic match that finds this problem is as follows:
(http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)
//
@r@
local idexpression x;
constant C;
@@
if (...) { ...
x = -C
... when != x
(
return <+...x
Hi,
> I don't think the signboards are big enough.
Sure; that's why I tried to make one of them larger.
> Most people assume that there is some way of fixing a broken file
> system, and finding out the btrfs does not have one usually is
> quite surprising and just a little too late.
On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 01:44:11PM -0500, Steven Pratt wrote:
> Here is the latest set of performance runs from the 2.6.35-rc5 tree.
> Included is a refresh of all the other filesystems with some changes
> for barriers on and off since this has been somewhat of a hot topic
> recently.
>
> New data
Chris Mason wrote:
On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 01:44:11PM -0500, Steven Pratt wrote:
Here is the latest set of performance runs from the 2.6.35-rc5 tree.
Included is a refresh of all the other filesystems with some changes
for barriers on and off since this has been somewhat of a hot topic
recent
On Lunes, 16 de Agosto de 2010 17:45:29 Chris Ball escribió:
>Note that Btrfs does not yet have a fsck tool that can fix errors.
>While Btrfs is stable on a stable machine, it is currently possible
>to corrupt a filesystem irrecoverably if your machine crashes or
>loses power. This
On 16/08/10 18:46, Ameya Palande wrote:
> Today I was checking the Kconfig option for btrfs and it still says,
> "Btrfs filesystem (EXPERIMENTAL) Unstable disk format"
I have a memory that there was still a possible disk format
change in the pipeline, am I misremembering, Chris M. ?
cheers!
Chri
Removes the dependency on __GFP_NOFAIL by looping indefinitely in the
caller.
Signed-off-by: David Rientjes
---
fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 18 ++
fs/btrfs/inode.c |5 -
2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs
Most other directories on /var/cache, *except* those created by squid,
can be defragmented.
The filesystem was converted from ext3/4.
turnip:~ # uname -a
Linux turnip 2.6.34-12-default #1 SMP 2010-06-29 02:39:08 +0200 x86_64
x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
(stock openSUSE 11.3 kernel)
turnip:~ btrfsctl
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:15 PM, Jon Nelson wrote:
> Most other directories on /var/cache, *except* those created by squid,
> can be defragmented.
> The filesystem was converted from ext3/4.
>
> turnip:~ # uname -a
> Linux turnip 2.6.34-12-default #1 SMP 2010-06-29 02:39:08 +0200 x86_64
> x86_64
18 matches
Mail list logo
