On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:14:51AM -0700, K. Richard Pixley wrote:
On 20100830 10:59, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
I think drbd does precisely what you want.
It's not useful for fault tolerance, nor for load balancing, but it
will
produce a remote block copy that can be used as a sort of
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 07:07:29AM +0200, Fred van Zwieten wrote:
Hmmm, maybe, but rsync would take a lot of time to find the changes.
the actual blocks of a snap _are_ the changes, that's why SnapMirror
is very efficient. And, I don't see how rsync will retain the snap's
between both sites.
Hi,
linux has supported nanosecond order file's timestamp since 2.5.48.
However current file timestamp is got by current_fs_time() and
is only updated once a tick. It can't say true nanosecond accuracy.
In addition, gettimeofday() before a file operation updating
{a,c,m}time would outstrip file's
Hello all,
Is there any patches for btrfs to use enhanced area in eMMC (it will
allow to boost performance i.e. it very useful to keep metadata within
this area) ?
If it's exist let me know how to find it and use it.
Thanks,
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 02:57:05PM +0300, Alexander Vdovichev wrote:
Hello all,
Is there any patches for btrfs to use enhanced area in eMMC (it will
allow to boost performance i.e. it very useful to keep metadata within
this area) ?
If it's exist let me know how to find it and use it.
On Tuesday, 31 August, 2010, Simon Kirby wrote:
[...]
Anyway, there _is_ this interface:
btrfs subvolume find-new path last_gen
List the recently modified files in a filesystem.
Eg:
btrfs sub find-new /mnt 0
This should print all files on the file system,
Thinking about this a bit more, would a setup with btrfs on top of
DRBD be a setup that comes in the neighboorhood of what SnapMirror
provides? DRBD does replication at the blocklevel, without any notion
of a filesystem on top of it (as I understand this). So, if I make a
snapshot on a DRBD'ed
On 20100831 14:46, Mike Fedyk wrote:
There is little reason not to use duplicate metadata. Only small
files (less than 2kb) get stored in the tree, so there should be no
worries about images being duplicated without data duplication set at
mkfs time.
My benchmarks show that for my kinds
