Re: synchronous removal?

2010-08-02 Thread Leonidas Spyropoulos
I think a cron job checking the output of df could do that. The shell script will check if there is enough space to create a snapshot otherwise remove a snapshot. How about that? On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 10:11 PM, K. Richard Pixley r...@noir.com wrote:  I have an application where I want to

Number of hard links limit

2010-08-02 Thread Sami Liedes
Hi, There's been discussion before on this list on the very small number of hard links supported by btrfs.[1][2] In those threads, an often asked question has been if there's a real world use case the limit breaks. Also it has been pointed out that a fix for this would need a disk format change.

Re: Number of hard links limit

2010-08-02 Thread Xavier Nicollet
Le 02 août 2010 à 14:40, Sami Liedes a écrit: [BTRFS supports only 256 hard-links per directory ...] but if it indeed needs a disk format change, I think this should be considered before the format is set in stone. I won't personally lose my sleep if this is not fixed - I can use other

Re: Are enormous extents harmful?

2010-08-02 Thread Chris Mason
On Sun, Aug 01, 2010 at 02:28:33PM +0100, Greg Kochanski wrote: I created a btrfs file system with a single 420 megabyte file in it. And, when I look at the file system with btrfs-debug, I see gigantic extents, as large as 99 megabytes: $ sudo btrfs-debug-tree /dev/sdb | grep extent

Re: Number of hard links limit

2010-08-02 Thread Anthony Roberts
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 15:05:56 +0200, Xavier Nicollet nicol...@jeru.org wrote: Le 02 août 2010 à 14:40, Sami Liedes a écrit: [BTRFS supports only 256 hard-links per directory ...] but if it indeed needs a disk format change, I think this should be considered before the format is set in stone. I

Re: Number of hard links limit

2010-08-02 Thread Michael Niederle
Also, I believe it's not strictly 256 links, it's dependent on the length of the names. I recall Chris posting something about being able to fix this without a format change, though it wasn't a priority yet. As to my knowledge the limit is 64KB for all names of a single file and due to

Re: Number of hard links limit

2010-08-02 Thread Roberto Ragusa
Michael Niederle wrote: Also, I believe it's not strictly 256 links, it's dependent on the length of the names. I recall Chris posting something about being able to fix this without a format change, though it wasn't a priority yet. As to my knowledge the limit is 64KB for all names of a

Re: Number of hard links limit

2010-08-02 Thread Oystein Viggen
* [Roberto Ragusa] That means it would not work for my backup server. At 4 backups per day, failure for filenames with 45 characters after just one year. IIRC, the limit on hard links is per directory. That is, if you put each hard link into its own directory, there's basically no limit to

Re: why does btrfs pronounce butter-eff-ess?

2010-08-02 Thread Chris Samuel
On 03/08/10 13:27, Wang Shaoyan wrote: As far as I know, btrfs comes from btree file system, but why does btrfs pronounce butter-eff-ess? My guess is that it is a pun on better-fs, btr being a possible contraction of better. English is a funny old language.. -- Chris Samuel :

Re: why does btrfs pronounce butter-eff-ess?

2010-08-02 Thread Aaron Toponce
On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 11:27:32AM +0800, Wang Shaoyan wrote: As far as I know, btrfs comes from btree file system, but why does btrfs pronounce butter-eff-ess? The same reason we pronounce ext3 as eks tee three rather than eee eks tee three- laziness. btree file system is two extra syllables