# touch /mnt/dst
# clone_range -d 4096 /mnt/src /mnt/dst
# umount /mnt
# btrfs-debug-tree /dev/sda7
...
item 10 key (258 INODE_REF 256) itemoff 3283 itemsize 13
inode ref index 3 namelen 3 name: tmp
item 11 key (258 EXTENT_DATA 4096) itemoff 3230 itemsize 53
# touch /mnt/dst
# clone_range -s 8192 -l 4096 /mnt/src /mnt/dst
# ls -l /mnt/dst
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 4096 dst
# umount /mnt
# btrfs-debug-tree /dev/sda7
...
item 11 key (258 EXTENT_DATA 0) itemoff 3230 itemsize 53
extent data disk byte 12582912 nr 49152
Arne Jansen sensille at gmx.net writes:
These 4 commands are used to build hierarchical qgroups and are only
for advanced users. I'll explain more of the concepts in a later
paper.
The main point here is that in the simplest case, a user creates a
filesystem with initial quota support,
On 24.08.2011 09:26, Yeh wrote:
Arne Jansen sensille at gmx.net writes:
These 4 commands are used to build hierarchical qgroups and are only
for advanced users. I'll explain more of the concepts in a later
paper.
The main point here is that in the simplest case, a user creates a
Hi,
after upgrading, I receive these messages (or similar) all the time...
P.
[ 142.542311] [ cut here ]
[ 142.542323] WARNING: at /home/kernel-ppa/COD/linux/fs/inode.c:1309
iput_final+0x14e/0x170()
[ 142.542326] Hardware name: Latitude E6410
[ 142.542327] Modules
On 08/24/2011 06:24 PM, Petr Hejl wrote:
Hi,
after upgrading, I receive these messages (or similar) all the time...
P.
Seems this patch can help you :)
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/1074802/
thanks,
liubo
[ 142.542311] [ cut here ]
[ 142.542323] WARNING:
Hi,
I have followed the progress made in the btrfs filesystem over time and
while I have experimented with it a little in a VM, I have not yet used
it in a production machine.
While the lack of a complete fsck was a major issue (I read the update
that the first working version is about to
On 24.08.2011 15:11, Berend Dekens wrote:
Hi,
I have followed the progress made in the btrfs filesystem over time and while
I have experimented with it a little in a VM, I have not yet used it in a
production machine.
While the lack of a complete fsck was a major issue (I read the
On 24/08/11 15:31, Arne Jansen wrote:
On 24.08.2011 15:11, Berend Dekens wrote:
Hi,
I have followed the progress made in the btrfs filesystem over time and while I
have experimented with it a little in a VM, I have not yet used it in a
production machine.
While the lack of a complete fsck
On 24.08.2011 17:01, Berend Dekens wrote:
On 24/08/11 15:31, Arne Jansen wrote:
On 24.08.2011 15:11, Berend Dekens wrote:
Hi,
I have followed the progress made in the btrfs filesystem over time and
while I have experimented with it a little in a VM, I have not yet used it
in a production
On 24/08/11 17:04, Arne Jansen wrote:
On 24.08.2011 17:01, Berend Dekens wrote:
On 24/08/11 15:31, Arne Jansen wrote:
On 24.08.2011 15:11, Berend Dekens wrote:
Hi,
I have followed the progress made in the btrfs filesystem over time and while I
have experimented with it a little in a VM, I
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Berend Dekens bt...@cyberwizzard.nl wrote:
On 24/08/11 17:04, Arne Jansen wrote:
On 24.08.2011 17:01, Berend Dekens wrote:
On 24/08/11 15:31, Arne Jansen wrote:
On 24.08.2011 15:11, Berend Dekens wrote:
Hi,
I have followed the progress made in the btrfs
AFAIK, ZFS compats lying disks by rolling back to the latest mountable
uber block (i.e. the latest tree that was completely and successfully
written to disk), does btrfs do something similar today ?
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 7:06 PM, Mitch Harder
mitch.har...@sabayonlinux.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug
We have a bit of documentation on the disk power failure and
corruption here:
https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/FAQ
Ref to the 2nd faq in the list.
Things would have been a lot easier for the filesystem (in terms
of maintaining the its consistency) if disks could have some kind
of
14 matches
Mail list logo
