On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 07:07:10AM +0100, Sander wrote:
[26678.568532] [c026c294] (btrfs_get_acl+0x60/0x250) from [c026c494]
(btrfs_xattr_get_acl+0x10/0x70)
[26678.577802] [c026c494] (btrfs_xattr_get_acl+0x10/0x70) from [c019bb20]
(generic_getxattr+0x78/0x7c)
[26678.587243] [c019bb20]
Hello Tomasz,
Tomasz Torcz wrote (ao):
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 07:07:10AM +0100, Sander wrote:
[26678.568532] [c026c294] (btrfs_get_acl+0x60/0x250) from [c026c494]
(btrfs_xattr_get_acl+0x10/0x70)
[26678.577802] [c026c494] (btrfs_xattr_get_acl+0x10/0x70) from
[c019bb20]
于 2010-1-21 16:57, Sander 写道:
Hello Tomasz,
Tomasz Torcz wrote (ao):
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 07:07:10AM +0100, Sander wrote:
[26678.568532] [c026c294] (btrfs_get_acl+0x60/0x250) from [c026c494]
(btrfs_xattr_get_acl+0x10/0x70)
[26678.577802] [c026c494]
On Wed, 20 Jan 2010, Chris Mason wrote:
Please let me know if this improves your ratios
It most certainly does! It also greatly reduced the time required to copy
the data to my (not very fast) disk. All my testing was done on 2.6.32.4.
The line numbers in your patch were a little off for
On Thursday 21 January 2010, you (Thomas Kupper) wrote:
Hello Goffredo,
I thought maybe email is a more practial way to ask you about it. But if
there's a better place in your opinion (mailling list?) let me know.
I cc'ed the btrfs-mailing list.
[speaking about a btrfs setup for a root
On Thursday 21 January 2010, Brian Neu wrote:
Well, it fails the way that I'm trying to do it.
kernel:2.6.31.9-174.fc12.x86_64
btrfs-progs: btrfs-progs-0.19-9.fc12.x86_64
On a new filesystem:
$ cd /mnt/btrfs1
$ btrfsctl -S subvol1 .
operation complete
Btrfs Btrfs v0.19
Hi all
this RFC is about unify all btrfs command (btrfsctl, btrfs-show, btrfs-tune..
) in only one called btrfs (or whatever we want).
Today btrfsctl needs a bit of care because
* the help is basically wrong [1]
* the return codes are incoherent [2]
* the syntax of the command are very
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Jim Faulkner jfaul...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2010, Chris Mason wrote:
Please let me know if this improves your ratios
It most certainly does! It also greatly reduced the time required to copy
the data to my (not very fast) disk. All my testing
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 01:16:31PM -0500, Jim Faulkner wrote:
delta-9 ~ # mount -o noatime,noacl,compress-force /dev/sdi /var/news/mysql
delta-9 ~ # time cp -a /nfs/media/tmp/btrfs-mysql-test /var/news/mysql/
real14m45.742s
user0m0.547s
sys 1m30.551s
delta-9 ~ # df -h
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 03:04:56PM -0500, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Jim Faulkner jfaul...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2010, Chris Mason wrote:
Please let me know if this improves your ratios
It most certainly does! It also greatly reduced the time
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010, Chris Mason wrote:
Either way, thanks for testing this out. Do you happen to remember how
small the file becomes when you just plain gzip it?
gzipping it I end up with an 11 GB file.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of
Hi Goffredo,
On 21 Jan 2010, at 19:35, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
On Thursday 21 January 2010, you (Thomas Kupper) wrote:
Hello Goffredo,
I thought maybe email is a more practial way to ask you about it. But if
there's a better place in your opinion (mailling list?) let me know.
I
Using btrfs as the root filesystem on my Ubuntu 9.10 powered laptop I discoverd
that mount is not showing the actual passed rootflags= but shows what is put in
the /etc/fstab.
First of all, I'm not sure if that is an intended behavior and if not, if it's
a problem of mount or btrfs.
Example:
Hi Goffredo,
It sounds good for me though detailed points need more discussion.
btrfs-progs seems unkind for operator as you mentioned, and many
features will be implemented to btrfsctl from now, it's good that
we arrange and unify btrfs-progs now.
As for me, plain keywords(delete,defrag...) as
$ btrfs
Usage:
btrfs clone|-c source [dest/]name
Clone the subvolume source with the name name in the
dest
directory.
Even though we allocate more, we should be updating inode i_size
as per the arguments passed
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V aneesh.ku...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
---
Changes from V1:
We should update i_size only if actual_len and cur_offset are both
larger than i_size. Otherwise if actual_len is
16 matches
Mail list logo