On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 07:30:57 -0400
Chris Mason chris.ma...@oracle.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 11:00:08AM +, Lubos Kolouch wrote:
No, not stable!
Again, after powerloss, I have *two* damaged btrfs filesystems.
Please tell me more about your system. I do extensive power fail
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:00:17 -0500
Chris Mason chris.ma...@oracle.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 06:35:06PM +0100, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:39:05 +0100
Sander san...@humilis.net wrote:
Stephan von Krawczynski wrote (ao):
Honestly I would just drop
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 02:07:40 +0100
Hubert Kario h...@qbs.com.pl wrote:
[...]
If the FS were to be smart and know about the 256kb requirement, it
would do a read/modify/write cycle somewhere and then write the 4KB.
If all the free blocks have been TRIMmed, FS should pick a completely free
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 11:59:57 +0100
Hubert Kario h...@qbs.com.pl wrote:
On Thursday 11 March 2010 08:38:53 Sander wrote:
Hello Gordan,
Gordan Bobic wrote (ao):
Mike Fedyk wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Gordan Bobic gor...@bobich.net wrote:
Are there options available
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:17:30 +
Gordan Bobic gor...@bobich.net wrote:
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:31:03 +0100, Stephan von Krawczynski
sk...@ithnet.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Gordan Bobic gor...@bobich.net
wrote:
Are there options available comparable to ext2/ext3
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:01:55 +0100
Hubert Kario h...@qbs.com.pl wrote:
[...]
The _SD_standard_ states that the media has to implement wear-leveling.
So any card with an SD logo implements it.
As I stated previously, the algorithms used in SD cards may not be as
advanced
as those in
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:39:05 +0100
Sander san...@humilis.net wrote:
Stephan von Krawczynski wrote (ao):
Honestly I would just drop the idea of an SSD option simply because the
vendors implement all kinds of neat strategies in their devices. So in the
end
you cannot really tell
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 09:09:44 +0100
Goffredo Baroncelli kreij...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday 24 January 2010, Michael Niederle wrote:
I'm using btrfs with a kernel 2.6.32.2 (builtin) as the root file system of
a
Gentoo Linux installation.
While attempting to install the plt-scheme
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:38:37 +0200
Jens Axboe jens.ax...@oracle.com wrote:
[...]
It's easy to throw cache at the problem and make it faster. That's like
shaving weight off a car. Might make it go faster, definitely wont make
it safer.
Interestingly nobody talks about the other end of the ssd
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 12:38:57 -0400
Chris Mason chris.ma...@oracle.com wrote:
On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 18:10 +0200, Ahmed Kamal wrote:
But now Oracle can re-license Solaris and merge ZFS with btrfs.
Just kidding, I don't think it would be technically feasible.
May I suggest the name
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 16:35:55 +0200
dbz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
concerning this discussion, I'd like to put up some requests which
strongly oppose to those brought up initially:
- if you run into an error in the fs structure or any IO error that prevents
you from bringing the fs into a
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 13:15:13 -0400
Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 07:01:36PM +0200, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
Sure, but what you say only reflects the ideal world. On a file service, you
never have that. In fact you do not even have good control about
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 18:09:40 +0200
Andi Kleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While that's true today, I'm not sure it has to be true always.
I always thought traditional fsck user interfaces were a
UI desaster and could be done much better with some simple tweaks.
[...]
You are completely right.
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 18:59:26 +0200
Andi Kleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stephan von Krawczynski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, we hear and say that all the time, name one linux fs doing it, please.
ext[234] support it to some extent. It has some limitations
(especially when the files
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 11:34:20 -0400
jim owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hearing what user's think they want is always good, but...
Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
thanks for your feedback. Understand minimum requirement as minimum
requirement to drop the current installation and migrate
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 13:49:43 -0400
Chris Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 18:27 +0200, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
2. general requirements
- fs errors without file/dir names are useless
- errors in parts of the fs are no reason for a fs to go offline
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 05:48:30 -0700
Jeff Schroeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
NFS is a good example for a fs that never got redesigned for modern world. I
hope it will, but currently it's like Model T on a highway.
You have a NFS server with clients. Your NFS server dies, your backup server
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 14:13:33 +0200
Andi Kleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stephan von Krawczynski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
reading the list for a while it looks like all kinds of implementational
topics are covered but no basic user requests or talks are going on. Since I
have found
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:20:16 -0400
jim owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
btrfs has many of the same goals... but they are goals not code
so when you might see them is indeterminate.
no big issue, my pension is 20 years away, I got time ;-)
I believe these should not be in btrfs:
Stephan von
19 matches
Mail list logo
