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.
>>
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
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
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
Hallo, linux-btrfs,
maybe it's a big error using the commmand
mkfs.btrfs -L xyz /dev/sdx1 /dev/sdy1 /dev/sdz1
(and so labelling many partitions) because each device/partition gets
the same label.
Mounting seems to be no problem, but (p.e.) "delete" doesn't kill the
btrfs informations show
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 04:23:00PM +0100, Helmut Hullen wrote:
> Hallo, linux-btrfs,
>
> maybe it's a big error using the commmand
>
> mkfs.btrfs -L xyz /dev/sdx1 /dev/sdy1 /dev/sdz1
>
> (and so labelling many partitions) because each device/partition gets
> the same label.
>
> Mounting see
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 26.02.12:
>> Mounting seems to be no problem, but (p.e.) "delete" doesn't kill
>> the btrfs informations shown with (p.e.) "blkid /dev/sdy1",
>> especially it doesn't delete the label.
>What do you mean by "delete" here?
btrfs device delete
>The label i
Hallo, linux-btrfs,
I've (once again) tried "add" and "delete".
First, with 3 devices (partitions):
mkfs.btrfs -d raid0 -m raid1 /dev/sdk1 /dev/sdl1 /dev/sdm1
Mounted (to /mnt/btr), filled with about 100 GByte data.
Then
btrfs device add /dev/sdj1 /mnt/btr
results in
# show
Label: none
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 05:12:00PM +0100, Helmut Hullen wrote:
> Hallo, Hugo,
>
> Du meintest am 26.02.12:
>
> >> Mounting seems to be no problem, but (p.e.) "delete" doesn't kill
> >> the btrfs informations shown with (p.e.) "blkid /dev/sdy1",
> >> especially it doesn't delete the label.
>
> >
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 26.02.12:
>> My (planned) usual work (once a year or so):
>>
>> btrfs device add
>> btrfs filesystem balance
>> btrfs device delete
>OK, the real problem you're seeing is that when btrfs removes a
> device from the filesystem, that dev
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 05:57:00PM +0100, Helmut Hullen wrote:
> Hallo, Hugo,
>
> Du meintest am 26.02.12:
>
> >> My (planned) usual work (once a year or so):
> >>
> >> btrfs device add
> >> btrfs filesystem balance
> >> btrfs device delete
>
> >OK, the real prob
Hugo Mills posted on Sun, 26 Feb 2012 16:44:00 + as excerpted:
>> I prefer LABELling the devices/partitions, and then I'd seen that the
>> option "-L" makes problems when I use it for more than 1 device/
>> partition.
>
>As far as I know, you can't label partitions or devices. Labels are
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 26.02.12:
>>> What you need to do is, immediately after
>>> removing a device from the FS, zero the first part of the partition
>>> with dd and /dev/zero.
>>
>> Ok - I'll try again (not today ...).
>> If I remember correct in early times deleting only the first block
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 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 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 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 02:52 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 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
One is enough.
Signed-off-by: Jesper Juhl
---
fs/btrfs/disk-io.c |2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
index 534266f..f87590b 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
@@ -2744,7 +2744,7 @@ static int write_d
Hi,
I am running some benchmarks to understand the performance of Btrfs.
Is there any way to classify the disk traffic so that one can know the disk
traffic generated by which activities in Btrfs.
Is there any tracing tools can be enabled in Btrfs?
Best regards,
--
Ren Kai--
To unsubscribe fro
Delete the instances of module.h that aren't actually used
or needed. Replace with export.h as required.
Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker
---
[This is 100% independent of any cleanups I'm working on, so it
can go in via the btrfs tree seamlessly.]
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c b/fs/btrfs/exte
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:11:29 +0530
Nageswara R Sastry wrote:
> Hello,
>
> While working with 'fsfuzz - file system fuzzing tool' on 'btrfs'
> encountered the following kernel bug.
I inquired about robustness a while ago and it seems it's at some point on the
horizon, but not now.
My concern w
On ఫిబ్రవరి 25 శనివారం 2012 ఉ. 11:42, Liu Bo wrote:
Hi, I guess you're mounting a quite small partition. Given that this
oops is in such an early stage, could you please show 1) your
mkfs.btrfs options and 2) the log of "btrfs-debug-tree /dev/loop0"?
thanks, liubo
Here are the steps with optio
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 26.02.12:
>mkfs.btrfs creates a new filesystem. The -L option sets the label
> for the newly-created FS. It *cannot* be used to change the label of
> an existing FS.
The safest way may be deleting this option ... it seems to work as
expected only when I create a
Hallo, linux-btrfs,
I want to change some TByte disks (at least one) from ext4 to btrfs. And
I want "-d raid0 -m raid1". Is it possible to tell btrfs-convert
especially these options for data and metadata?
Or have I to use "mkfs.btrfs" (and then copy the backup) when I want
these options?
26 matches
Mail list logo
