I am cc´ing this to fsdevel as I think how to handle a disconnected usb device
may be of broader interest. Well free to drop Cc again in case you see it as
only BTRFS specific issue.
Am Mittwoch, 31. Dezember 2014, 09:30:49 schrieb Qu Wenruo:
> Hi all,
Hi Qu,
> While surfing the Redhat BZ, a l
On 2014-12-29 16:53, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 8:12 PM, Phillip Susi wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA512
>>
>> On 12/23/2014 05:09 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>> The timer in /sys is a kernel command timer, it's not a device
>>> timer even though it's poin
Fajar A. Nugraha posted on Wed, 31 Dec 2014 13:16:14 +0700 as excerpted:
> On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Eric Sandeen
> wrote:
>> On 12/30/14 10:06 PM, Wang Shilong wrote:
I used CentOS7 btrfs myself, just doing some tests..it crashed
easily.
I don’t know how much efforts that R
Phillip
> I had a similar question a year or two ago (
> specifically about raid10 ) so I both experimented and read the code
> myself to find out. I was disappointed to find that it won't do
> raid10 on 3 disks since the chunk metadata describes raid10 as a
> stripe layered on top of a mirror.
On Wed, 31 Dec 2014 16:28:17 + (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> I also noticed that they mention reiserfs as btrfs-convert-ready. That I
> didn't know. I thought btrfs-convert only supported ext*.
This might have been a mistake, or they have their own very special fork of it.
Commit 1d52c78afbb (Btrfs: try not to ENOSPC on log replay) added a
check to skip delayed inode updates during log replay because it
confuses the enospc code. But the delayed processing will end up
skipping delayed refs from log replay because the inode itself wasn't
put through the delayed code.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 12/31/2014 12:27 PM, ashf...@whisperpc.com wrote:
> I see this as a CRITICAL design flaw. The reason for calling it
> CRITICAL is that System Administrators have been trained for >20
> years that RAID-10 can usually handle a dual-disk failure, bu
On Wed, 31 Dec 2014 09:27:14 AM ashf...@whisperpc.com wrote:
> I see this as a CRITICAL design flaw. The reason for calling it CRITICAL
> is that System Administrators have been trained for >20 years that RAID-10
> can usually handle a dual-disk failure, but the BTRFS implementation has
> effecti
