Zygo Blaxell posted on Mon, 27 Oct 2014 00:39:25 -0400 as excerpted:
One thing that may be significant is _when_ those 3 hanging filesystems
are hanging: when using rsync to update local files. These machines
are using the traditional rsync copy-then-rename method rather than
--inplace
Marc Joliet posted on Mon, 27 Oct 2014 02:24:15 +0100 as excerpted:
Am Sat, 25 Oct 2014 14:35:33 -0600 schrieb Chris Murphy
li...@colorremedies.com:
On Oct 25, 2014, at 2:33 PM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com
wrote:
On Oct 25, 2014, at 6:24 AM, Marc Joliet mar...@gmx.de wrote:
Am Sat, 25 Oct 2014 14:35:33 -0600
schrieb Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com:
On Oct 25, 2014, at 2:33 PM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
On Oct 25, 2014, at 6:24 AM, Marc Joliet mar...@gmx.de wrote:
First of all: does grub2 support booting from a btrfs file system
Am Sat, 25 Oct 2014 21:58:08 +0200
schrieb Marc Joliet mar...@gmx.de:
Am Sat, 25 Oct 2014 14:24:58 +0200
schrieb Marc Joliet mar...@gmx.de:
I can still access files on MARCEC_BACKUP just fine, and the snapshots are
still there (btrfs subvolume list succeeds).
Just an update: that was
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 06:34:03PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 01:33:37PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
I'd like to make it default with the 3.17 release of btrfs-progs.
Please let me know if you have objections.
For the record, 3.17 will not change the defaults. The
Am Mon, 20 Oct 2014 18:34:03 +0200
schrieb David Sterba dste...@suse.cz:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 01:33:37PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
I'd like to make it default with the 3.17 release of btrfs-progs.
Please let me know if you have objections.
For the record, 3.17 will not change the
Am Sat, 25 Oct 2014 14:24:58 +0200
schrieb Marc Joliet mar...@gmx.de:
I can still access files on MARCEC_BACKUP just fine, and the snapshots are
still there (btrfs subvolume list succeeds).
Just an update: that was true for a while, but at one point listing directories
and accessing the file
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 02:41:47AM +, Duncan wrote:
Dave posted on Wed, 22 Oct 2014 08:49:46 -0400 as excerpted:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 10:08 PM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
As for the mounted filesystem question, since all it does is flip a
switch so that new metadata writes
On 22 October 2014 04:08, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Since the kernel has code for both fat metadata and skinny-metadata,
they can exist side-by-side and the kernel will use whichever code is
appropriate.
I understand that the fat extent code will probably never be removed
for
Tobias Geerinckx-Rice posted on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 16:47:19 +0200 as
excerpted:
On 22 October 2014 04:08, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Since the kernel has code for both fat metadata and skinny-metadata,
they can exist side-by-side and the kernel will use whichever code is
appropriate.
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 10:08 PM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
As for the mounted filesystem question, since all it does is flip a
switch so that new metadata writes use the skinny-metadata code path, it
shouldn't be a problem.
Nope. Just tried it here:
# btrfs --version
Btrfs
Dave posted on Wed, 22 Oct 2014 08:49:46 -0400 as excerpted:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 10:08 PM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
As for the mounted filesystem question, since all it does is flip a
switch so that new metadata writes use the skinny-metadata code path,
it shouldn't be a
David Sterba posted on Mon, 20 Oct 2014 18:34:03 +0200 as excerpted:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 01:33:37PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
I'd like to make it default with the 3.17 release of btrfs-progs.
Please let me know if you have objections.
For the record, 3.17 will not change the defaults.
On 2014-10-21 05:29, Duncan wrote:
David Sterba posted on Mon, 20 Oct 2014 18:34:03 +0200 as excerpted:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 01:33:37PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
I'd like to make it default with the 3.17 release of btrfs-progs.
Please let me know if you have objections.
For the record,
On 21/10/2014 2:02 μμ, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2014-10-21 05:29, Duncan wrote:
David Sterba posted on Mon, 20 Oct 2014 18:34:03 +0200 as excerpted:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 01:33:37PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
I'd like to make it default with the 3.17 release of btrfs-progs.
Please let
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 5:29 AM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
David Sterba posted on Mon, 20 Oct 2014 18:34:03 +0200 as excerpted:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 01:33:37PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
I'd like to make it default with the 3.17 release of btrfs-progs.
Please let me know if you
Rich Freeman posted on Tue, 21 Oct 2014 12:40:01 -0400 as excerpted:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 5:29 AM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
David Sterba posted on Mon, 20 Oct 2014 18:34:03 +0200 as excerpted:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 01:33:37PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
I'd like to make it
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 01:33:37PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
I'd like to make it default with the 3.17 release of btrfs-progs.
Please let me know if you have objections.
For the record, 3.17 will not change the defaults. The timing of the
poll was very bad to get enough feedback before the
Hello,
so far I haven't succeeded running btrfs balance on a large
skinny-metadata fs -- segfault, kernel bug, reproducible. No such
problems on ^skinny-metadata fs (same disks, same data). Tried both
several times on 3.17. More info in comments 10,14 in
On 10/18/2014 07:21 AM, Petr Janecek wrote:
Hello,
so far I haven't succeeded running btrfs balance on a large
skinny-metadata fs -- segfault, kernel bug, reproducible. No such
problems on ^skinny-metadata fs (same disks, same data). Tried both
several times on 3.17. More info in
Hello Josef,
With Skinny metadta and i running your btrfs-next repo for-suse branch
(which has extent ref patch), i hit following problem:
[ 250.679705] BTRFS info (device sdb): relocating block group 35597058048
flags 36
Thanks I'll run this on Monday.
Josef
Wang Shilong wangshilong1...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Josef,
With Skinny metadta and i running your btrfs-next repo for-suse branch
(which has extent ref patch), i hit following problem:
[ 250.679705] BTRFS info (device sdb): relocating block group
Sure, that is cool, let me know if i could give any help!
I have an idle VM that could run btrfs tests there.^_^
Thanks I'll run this on Monday.
Josef
Wang Shilong wangshilong1...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Josef,
With Skinny metadta and i running your btrfs-next repo for-suse branch
Hello,
the core of skinny-metadata feature has been merged in 3.10 (Jun 2013)
and has been reportedly used by many people. No major bugs were reported
lately unless I missed them.
so far I haven't succeeded running btrfs balance on a large
skinny-metadata fs -- segfault, kernel bug,
On 10/17/2014 08:30 AM, Petr Janecek wrote:
Hello,
the core of skinny-metadata feature has been merged in 3.10 (Jun 2013)
and has been reportedly used by many people. No major bugs were reported
lately unless I missed them.
so far I haven't succeeded running btrfs balance on a large
Hi,
the core of skinny-metadata feature has been merged in 3.10 (Jun 2013)
and has been reportedly used by many people. No major bugs were reported
lately unless I missed them.
The obvious benefit is reduced metadata consumption at the cost of lost
backward compatibility for pre-3.10 kernels. I
26 matches
Mail list logo
