Re: [PATCH v5 8/9] vfs: Add vfs_copy_file_range() support for pagecache copies

On 2015-10-15 02:36, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 03:08:46PM -0400, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: Whether or not reflink is different from a copy is entirely a matter of who is looking at it. So what? I've been trying to explain why clone semantics matter, and I've not seen

Re: [PATCH v5 8/9] vfs: Add vfs_copy_file_range() support for pagecache copies

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 03:08:46PM -0400, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: > Whether or not reflink is different from a copy is entirely a matter of who > is looking at it. So what? I've been trying to explain why clone semantics matter, and I've not seen a counter argument for that. I've also

Re: BTRFS raid 5/6 status

audio muze writes: > It seems to me that the simplest option at present is probably to use > each disk separately, formatted btrfs, and backed up to other drives. > The data to be stored on these drives is largely static - video and > audio library. In that case this might

Re: [PATCH v5 9/9] btrfs: btrfs_copy_file_range() only supports reflinks

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:46:08AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 12:29:59AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 04:41:06PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > One of the patches in last week's XFS reflink patchbomb adds > > > FALLOC_FL_UNSHARE > >

Re: [PATCH 03/12] generic/80[0-2]: support xfs in addition to btrfs

> +# this test requires the test fs support reflink... > +# > +_require_test_reflink() > +{ > +case $FSTYP in > +xfs) > + xfs_info "${TEST_DIR}" | grep reflink=1 -c -q || _notrun "Reflink not > supported by this filesystem type: $FSTYP" > + ;; > +btrfs) > +true > +

Re: [PATCH V2] Btrfs-progs: Do not force mixed block group creation unless '-M' option is specified

On Thursday 15 Oct 2015 09:48:33 Qu Wenruo wrote: > The mount failure also remind me about btrfs minimal size check. > > Mkfs has its device check against nodesize by btrfs_min_dev_size() function. > So this also means currect btrfs_min_dev_size() check is not good enough. > > > Current code

Re: System completely unresponsive after `btrfs balance start -dconvert=raid0 /` and `btrfs fi show /`

Zygo Blaxell posted on Thu, 15 Oct 2015 00:39:27 -0400 as excerpted: > As others have pointed out, the raid0 allocator has a 2-disk-minimum > constraint, so any difference in size between the largest and > second-largest disk is unusable. In your case that's 73% of the raw > space. > > If the

Re: Recover btrfs volume which can only be mounded in read-only mode

On 15 October 2015 at 02:48, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > Dmitry Katsubo posted on Wed, 14 Oct 2015 22:27:29 +0200 as excerpted: > >> On 14/10/2015 16:40, Anand Jain wrote: # mount -o degraded /var Oct 11 18:20:15 kernel: BTRFS: too many missing devices, writeable mount is not

[GIT PULL] Btrfs fixes for 4.4 integration branch

From: Filipe Manana Hi Chris. Please consider the bug fixes listed below for the linux kernel 4.4 merge window (they were all previously sent to the mailing list). Robin Ruede found and fixed a regression in send that was introduced by a commit added to the 4.2 kernel

Re: [PATCH 03/12] generic/80[0-2]: support xfs in addition to btrfs

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 02:19:44AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > +# this test requires the test fs support reflink... > > +# > > +_require_test_reflink() > > +{ > > +case $FSTYP in > > +xfs) > > + xfs_info "${TEST_DIR}" | grep reflink=1 -c -q || _notrun "Reflink not > > supported

Re: Recover btrfs volume which can only be mounded in read-only mode

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 04:10:13PM +0200, Dmitry Katsubo wrote: [snip] > If I may ask: > > Provided that btrfs allowed to mount a volume in read-only mode – does > it mean that add data blocks are present (e.g. it has assured that add > files / directories can be read)? > > Do you have any ideas

Re: State of Dedup / Defrag

Rich Freeman posted on Thu, 15 Oct 2015 12:33:56 -0400 as excerpted: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:47 PM, Zygo Blaxell > wrote: >> >> I wouldn't describe dedup+defrag as unsafe. More like insane. You >> won't lose any data, but running both will waste a lot of

[GIT PULL][4.4] Qgroup reserve rework

Hi Chris, Please consider the following git pull for 4.4 merge window. https://github.com/adam900710/linux.git for_chris_4.4_qgroup_reserve_rework These pull is based on the following commit: commit 6db4a7335dd701a0e20275440ee057d3db2a7ae3 Merge: 62fb50a ee86395 Author: Chris Mason

Re: [PATCH v5 8/9] vfs: Add vfs_copy_file_range() support for pagecache copies

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 08:24:51AM -0400, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: > My only point with saying we shouldn't reflink by default is that there are > many (unintelligent) people who will assume that since the syscall has copy > in it's name, that's what it will do; and, while I don't think we

[GIT PULL][4.4] Qgroup reserve rework

Hi Chris, Please consider the following git pull for 4.4 merge window. https://github.com/adam900710/linux.git for_chris_4.4_qgroup_reserve_rework These pull is based on the following commit: commit 6db4a7335dd701a0e20275440ee057d3db2a7ae3 Merge: 62fb50a ee86395 Author: Chris Mason

Re: State of Dedup / Defrag

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:47 PM, Zygo Blaxell wrote: > > I wouldn't describe dedup+defrag as unsafe. More like insane. You won't > lose any data, but running both will waste a lot of time and power. > Either one is OK without the other, or applied to

Re: RAID6 stable enough for production?

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 9:47 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > > For that matter, now that GlusterFS has checksums and snapshots... Interesting - I haven't kept up with that. Does it actually do end-to-end checksums? That is, compute the checksum at the time of storage, store

Re: [PATCH v5 9/9] btrfs: btrfs_copy_file_range() only supports reflinks

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:46:08AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > The documentation for fallocate ought to be updated to include that as part of > guaranteeing that subsequent writes to the range won't fail due to ENOSPC, > shared blocks will be unshared. > > Incidentally, btrfs leaves shared

Re: BTRFS raid 5/6 status

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 07:39:20AM +0200, audio muze wrote: > Thanks Chris > > I should've browsed recent threads, my apologies. Terribly > frustrating though that the issues you refer to aren't documented in > the btrfs wiki. Reading the wiki one is lead to believe that the only > real issue

Re: RAID6 stable enough for production?

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 9:47 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: >> >> For that matter, now that GlusterFS has checksums and snapshots... > > Interesting - I haven't kept up with that. Does it