Or, better yet, how about just releasing the source code already.
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 4:19 AM, Clemens Eisserer wrot
> Any update on the state of btrfschk?
>
> Thanks, Clemens
>
> 2011/10/31 David Summers :
>> On 05/10/11 07:16, Chris Mason wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> So over the next two weeks I'm j
I've read the entire thread "Oops while rebalancing, now unmountable."
and it ended without any information about repairing the fs. (the web
page wouldn't let me post a reply to that thread tho.)
Has there been any info? The fs was working fine until I rebooted.
thanks for any info!
--jeff
ro
Me too. I've got a 9TB filesystem that I can't mount since rebooting
during a rebalance. I want to get the fs as repaired as possible, but
I am not in a hurry, and I have enough space at present to make a
duplicate and play with test versions of the repair.
--jeff
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9:41 AM
Isn't it about time to make some hard decisions about btrfsck? Three
years is enough time to go without this type of functionality in a
modern filesystem, especially given btrfs's fragility in the face of
power failures.
Given the lack of progress, and the inability to provide remotely
realistic
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
> I had hoped to get #1 out the door before I left on vacation and I still might
> post it tonight.
>
> -chris
I don't think this is the honest time line that people were looking
for. Instead of playing more guessing games, how about we just ge
ing code, having any failed attempts in source control
would still be instructive to whoever takes over delivering an actual
fsck tool.
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Clemens Eisserer wrote:
> +1
>
> 2011/9/27 Jeff Putney :
>> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Chris Mason wrote
Mason wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 01:01:00PM -0500, Jeff Putney wrote:
>> Isn't it about time to make some hard decisions about btrfsck? Three
>> years is enough time to go without this type of functionality in a
>> modern filesystem, especially given btrfs's fr
> No, in this case it means we're confident it will get rolled out.
On Aug 18th confidence was high enough to declare a possible release
that very day. This confidence turned into 7 weeks of silence
followed by another 2 week estimate.
These confident declarations are why things like mniederle's
> For fsck, even the stuff I have here does have a way to go before it is
> at the level of an e2fsck or xfs_repair. But I do want to make sure
> that I'm surprised by any bugs before I send it out, and that's just not
> the case today. The release has been delayed because I've alternated
> betwe
The rescue tool may have a lot of the logic I personally am most
interested in reading. Thank you for that!
> The problem is people won't just read it, they will use it.
I've read every last line of the current btrfsck, even though it
doesn't do anything. I am interested in the source specifica
of an fsck utility for the last
year, do you honestly believe no one else would have begun
development? Call it under your thumb if you'd like, but you'll argue
these declarations didn't have a stifling effect in vain.
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On 10
> Heh, what sort of "quality" are you thinking would develop? A
> recovery tool by its nature is picking up the pieces where those
> pieces are inconsistent. The nature of those inconsistencies will
> change with every patch that's more than a cleanup.
>
Seriously? You want to delay the solving
> Even if its a thousand +1 following, it seems to me that its perfectly
> Chris Masons decision...
Obviously.
> Chris seems to have some ideas on when to release the fsck.
Yes, and that idea of when has been drifting in the couple week range
for about a year.
> So what do you
> think you achie
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 12. Oktober 2011 schrieb Jeff Putney:
>> > I do not argue that having a nice fsck sooner than later is fine, but
>> > I question the usefulness of repeating reminders. Chris Mason and
>> > oth
>> If your driver keeps telling you that you're going to arrive in 10
>> seconds, and it takes a child to start asking questions, maybe you
>> should pay more attention and realize you just might be gettin
>> shanghaied.
>
>
> Are you serious? How much are you paying for that ride?
>
Not really, I
15 matches
Mail list logo
