Re: Small fs

Chris Murphy posted on Sun, 11 Sep 2016 21:03:04 -0600 as excerpted: > The man page says: > "The recommended size for the mixed mode is for filesystems less than > 1GiB." But in this case recommended !=default which requires some mental > gymnastics to rectify. If mixed-bg becomes obsolete upon

Re: compress=lzo safe to use?

Hans van Kranenburg posted on Sun, 11 Sep 2016 22:49:58 +0200 as excerpted: > So, you can use a lot of compress without problems for years. > > Only if your hardware is starting to break in a specific way, causing > lots and lots of checksum errors, the kernel might not be able to handle > all

Re: Small fs

Imran Geriskovan posted on Sun, 11 Sep 2016 21:56:07 +0300 as excerpted: > On 9/11/16, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: >> Martin Steigerwald posted on Sun, 11 Sep 2016 17:32:44 +0200 as >> excerpted: What is the smallest recommended fs size for btrfs? Can we say size should be in

Re: Small fs

On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 8:00 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > Chris Murphy posted on Sun, 11 Sep 2016 14:33:18 -0600 as excerpted: > >> Something else that's screwy in that bug that I just realized, why is it >> not defaulting to mixed-block groups on a 100MiB fallocated file? I >>

Re: Small fs

Chris Murphy posted on Sun, 11 Sep 2016 14:33:18 -0600 as excerpted: > Something else that's screwy in that bug that I just realized, why is it > not defaulting to mixed-block groups on a 100MiB fallocated file? I > thought mixed-bg was the default below a certain size like 2GiB or > whatever?

Re: compress=lzo safe to use?

On 2016-09-12 05:48, Martin Steigerwald wrote: Am Sonntag, 26. Juni 2016, 13:13:04 CEST schrieb Steven Haigh: On 26/06/16 12:30, Duncan wrote: > Steven Haigh posted on Sun, 26 Jun 2016 02:39:23 +1000 as excerpted: >> In every case, it was a flurry of csum error messages, then instant >> death.

Re: [PATCH 2/3] writeback: allow for dirty metadata accounting

On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 10:17:43AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > On Mon 22-08-16 13:35:01, Josef Bacik wrote: > > Provide a mechanism for file systems to indicate how much dirty metadata > > they > > are holding. This introduces a few things > > > > 1) Zone stats for dirty metadata, which is the

Re: compress=lzo safe to use?

On 09/11/2016 09:48 PM, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > Am Sonntag, 26. Juni 2016, 13:13:04 CEST schrieb Steven Haigh: >> On 26/06/16 12:30, Duncan wrote: >>> Steven Haigh posted on Sun, 26 Jun 2016 02:39:23 +1000 as excerpted: In every case, it was a flurry of csum error messages, then instant

Re: Small fs

On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Imran Geriskovan wrote: > What is the smallest recommended fs size for btrfs? It depends on the layout. And there is some confusion about the mkfs command message it returns when it doesn't work out.

Re: compress=lzo safe to use? (was: Re: Trying to rescue my data :()

On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 2:06 PM, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 09:48:35PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote: >> Hmm… I found this from being referred to by reading Debian wiki page on >> BTRFS¹. >> >> I use compress=lzo on BTRFS RAID 1 since April 2014 and I

Re: Is stability a joke?

On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 14:39:14 CEST schrieb Waxhead: >> Martin Steigerwald wrote: >> > Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 13:43:59 CEST schrieb Martin Steigerwald: >> > The Nouveau graphics driver have a

Re: Is stability a joke?

On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Hugo Mills wrote: > On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 02:39:14PM +0200, Waxhead wrote: >> Martin Steigerwald wrote: >> >Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 13:43:59 CEST schrieb Martin Steigerwald: >> Thing is: This just seems to be when has a feature

Re: compress=lzo safe to use? (was: Re: Trying to rescue my data :()

On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 09:48:35PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > Hmm… I found this from being referred to by reading Debian wiki page on > BTRFS¹. > > I use compress=lzo on BTRFS RAID 1 since April 2014 and I never found an > issue. Steven, your filesystem wasn´t RAID 1 but RAID 5 or 6? >

Re: Small fs

Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 19:46:32 CEST schrieb Hugo Mills: > On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 09:13:28PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 16:44:23 CEST schrieb Duncan: > > > * Metadata, and thus mixed-bg, defaults to DUP mode on a single-device > > > filesystem

compress=lzo safe to use? (was: Re: Trying to rescue my data :()

Am Sonntag, 26. Juni 2016, 13:13:04 CEST schrieb Steven Haigh: > On 26/06/16 12:30, Duncan wrote: > > Steven Haigh posted on Sun, 26 Jun 2016 02:39:23 +1000 as excerpted: > >> In every case, it was a flurry of csum error messages, then instant > >> death. > > > > This is very possibly a known bug

Re: Small fs

On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 09:13:28PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 16:44:23 CEST schrieb Duncan: > > * Metadata, and thus mixed-bg, defaults to DUP mode on a single-device > > filesystem (except on ssd where I actually still use it myself, and > > recommend it

Re: Small fs

Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 21:56:07 CEST schrieb Imran Geriskovan: > On 9/11/16, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > > Martin Steigerwald posted on Sun, 11 Sep 2016 17:32:44 +0200 as excerpted: > >>> What is the smallest recommended fs size for btrfs? > >>> Can we say size should be in

Re: Small fs

Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 16:44:23 CEST schrieb Duncan: > * Metadata, and thus mixed-bg, defaults to DUP mode on a single-device > filesystem (except on ssd where I actually still use it myself, and > recommend it except for ssds that do firmware dedupe). In mixed-mode > this means two

Re: [PATCH 3/3] ioctl_xfs_ioc_getfsmap.2: document XFS_IOC_GETFSMAP ioctl

On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 10:00:29AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 11:07:16PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 09:38:06AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 12:09:49PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > > > I recall for FIEMAP

Re: Small fs

On 9/11/16, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > Martin Steigerwald posted on Sun, 11 Sep 2016 17:32:44 +0200 as excerpted: >>> What is the smallest recommended fs size for btrfs? >>> Can we say size should be in multiples of 64MB? >> Do you want to know the smalled *recommended* or the smallest

Re: Is stability a joke?

On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 02:39:14PM +0200, Waxhead wrote: > That is exactly the same reason I don't edit the wiki myself. I could of > course get it started and hopefully someone will correct what I write, but I > feel that if I start this off I don't have deep enough knowledge to do a > proper

Re: Is stability a joke?

Martin Steigerwald posted on Sun, 11 Sep 2016 14:05:03 +0200 as excerpted: > Just add another column called "Production ready". Then research / ask > about production stability of each feature. The only challenge is: Who > is authoritative on that? I´d certainly ask the developer of a feature, >

Re: Small fs

Martin Steigerwald posted on Sun, 11 Sep 2016 17:32:44 +0200 as excerpted: > Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 18:27:30 CEST schrieben Sie: >> What is the smallest recommended fs size for btrfs? >> >> - There are mentions of 256MB around the net. >> - Gparted reserves minimum of 256MB for btrfs.

Re: Small fs

Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 18:27:30 CEST schrieben Sie: > What is the smallest recommended fs size for btrfs? > > - There are mentions of 256MB around the net. > - Gparted reserves minimum of 256MB for btrfs. > > With an ordinary partition on a single disk, > fs created with just

Small fs

What is the smallest recommended fs size for btrfs? - There are mentions of 256MB around the net. - Gparted reserves minimum of 256MB for btrfs. With an ordinary partition on a single disk, fs created with just "mkfs.btrfs /dev/sdxx": - 128MB works fine. - 127MB works but as if it is 64MB. Can

Re: Is stability a joke?

Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 16:54:25 CEST schrieben Sie: > Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 14:39:14 CEST schrieb Waxhead: > > Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > > Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 13:43:59 CEST schrieb Martin Steigerwald: > > > The Nouveau graphics driver have a nice feature

Re: Is stability a joke?

Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 13:02:21 CEST schrieb Hugo Mills: > On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 02:39:14PM +0200, Waxhead wrote: > > Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > >Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 13:43:59 CEST schrieb Martin Steigerwald: > > Thing is: This just seems to be when has a feature been

Re: Is stability a joke?

Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 14:39:14 CEST schrieb Waxhead: > Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 13:43:59 CEST schrieb Martin Steigerwald: > > The Nouveau graphics driver have a nice feature matrix on it's webpage > > and I think that BTRFS perhaps should

Re: Is stability a joke?

Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 14:30:51 CEST schrieb Waxhead: > > I think what would be a good next step would be to ask developers / users > > about feature stability and then update the wiki. If thats important to > > you, I suggest you invest some energy in doing that. And ask for help. > >

Re: Is stability a joke?

On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 02:39:14PM +0200, Waxhead wrote: > Martin Steigerwald wrote: > >Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 13:43:59 CEST schrieb Martin Steigerwald: > Thing is: This just seems to be when has a feature been implemented > matrix. > Not when it is considered to be stable. I

Re: Is stability a joke?

Martin Steigerwald wrote: Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 13:43:59 CEST schrieb Martin Steigerwald: The Nouveau graphics driver have a nice feature matrix on it's webpage and I think that BTRFS perhaps should consider doing something like that on it's official wiki as well BTRFS also has a

Re: Is stability a joke?

Martin Steigerwald wrote: Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 13:21:30 CEST schrieb Zoiled: Martin Steigerwald wrote: Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 10:55:21 CEST schrieb Waxhead: I have been following BTRFS for years and have recently been starting to use BTRFS more and more and as always

Re: Is stability a joke?

Martin Steigerwald wrote: Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 10:55:21 CEST schrieb Waxhead: I have been following BTRFS for years and have recently been starting to use BTRFS more and more and as always BTRFS' stability is a hot topic. Some says that BTRFS is a dead end research project while

Re: Is stability a joke?

Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 13:43:59 CEST schrieb Martin Steigerwald: > > >> The Nouveau graphics driver have a nice feature matrix on it's webpage > > >> and I think that BTRFS perhaps should consider doing something like > > >> that > > >> on it's official wiki as well > > > > > > BTRFS

Re: Is stability a joke?

Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 13:21:30 CEST schrieb Zoiled: > Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 10:55:21 CEST schrieb Waxhead: > >> I have been following BTRFS for years and have recently been starting to > >> use BTRFS more and more and as always BTRFS' stability is

Re: Is stability a joke?

Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 10:55:21 CEST schrieb Waxhead: > I have been following BTRFS for years and have recently been starting to > use BTRFS more and more and as always BTRFS' stability is a hot topic. > Some says that BTRFS is a dead end research project while others claim > the

Re: Is stability a joke?

This. So much this. After being burned badly by the documentation / wiki etc making RAID5/6 seem stable, I think its a joke how the features of BTRFS are promoted. A lot that is marked as 'Implemented' or 'Complete' is little more than a "In theory, it works" - but will eat your data. Having a

Is stability a joke?

I have been following BTRFS for years and have recently been starting to use BTRFS more and more and as always BTRFS' stability is a hot topic. Some says that BTRFS is a dead end research project while others claim the opposite. Taking a quick glance at the wiki does not say much about what is