Am Donnerstag, 26. April 2012 schrieb Bart Noordervliet:
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 11:06, Thomas Rohwer troh...@ennit.de wrote:
As for the two filesystems shown in btrfs fi show... I have no clue
what that is about. Did you maybe make a mistake to create a btrfs
filesystem on the whole disk
We may try to flush some dirty pages when there is no enough space to reserve.
But it is possible that this operation fails, in order to get enough space to
reserve successfully, we will sync all the delalloc file. This operation is
safe, we needn't worry about the case that the filesystem goes
writeback_inodes_sb(_nr)_if_idle() is re-implemented by replacing down_read()
with down_read_trylock() because
- If -s_umount is write locked, then the sb is not idle. That is
writeback_inodes_sb(_nr)_if_idle() needn't wait for the lock.
- writeback_inodes_sb(_nr)_if_idle() grabs s_umount lock
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 06:42:52PM +0200, Hubert Kario wrote:
On Thursday 26 of April 2012 20:54:47 Duncan wrote:
Helmut Hullen posted on Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:11:00 +0200 as excerpted:
Hallo, Bart,
Well I think there is a btrfs superblock still present from the
full-disk filesystem.
Am 29.04.2012, 01:53 Uhr, schrieb Hubert Kario h...@qbs.com.pl:
On Sunday 01 of April 2012 11:42:23 Jérôme Poulin wrote:
On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Norbert Scheibner s...@gmx.net wrote:
Some users tested this patch successfully for week,s or months in 2
or 3
kernel versions since
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Christian Brunner
christ...@brunner-muc.de wrote:
After running ceph on XFS for some time, I decided to try btrfs again.
Performance with the current for-linux-min branch and big metadata
is much better.
I've heard that although performance from btrfs is better
