This currently applies on top of Josef's df patches.
Currently, a series of utilities are necessary to get an approximate answer to
the question How much disk space do I have free?. Previously, df returned
numbers which, while accurate, weren't useful: the physical disk size isn't
Hi list
Just a quick cut 'n paste report from my dmesg. Let me know if I can help any
furter.
2.6.36~rc6
PS: I think this is identical to the problem reported on 23/09 Dirtiable inode
bdi default != sb bdi btrfs, and might already be fixed in rc6+ , but there
are some other traces in here,
Wow, vger categorically refuses HTML e-mail!
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 4:41 PM, David Nicol davidni...@gmail.com wrote:
the inode number is an unsigned long which on a 32 bit system may be merely
32 bits, yet btrfs allows a full 64 bits of files in a file system (which is
impossible; but ZFS
Which is a really good thing!
HTML e-mails are useless and nobody should use them! I'm sure they came
directly from hell.
David Nicol schrieb:
Wow, vger categorically refuses HTML e-mail!
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 4:41 PM, David Nicol davidni...@gmail.com wrote:
the inode number is an
Make sure compiler won't do weird things with limits. E.g. fetching
them twice may return 2 different values after writable limits are
implemented.
I.e. either use rlimit helpers added in
3e10e716abf3c71bdb5d86b8f507f9e72236c9cd
or ACCESS_ONCE if not applicable.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby
Correct, this one is already fixed. Just do a git pull from Linus' tree
and you'll get the fix.
BTW, is there a separate btrfs tree? Or, everything gets to Linus' tree
straight away?
The https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Btrfs_source_repositories points to:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 05:53:34PM -0700, Erik Jensen wrote:
After some more investigation, I discovered that for some reason btrfs
is trying to write to the missing drive (devid 5) in the course of
removing it from the array. Since this drive is missing, it is
naturally not writable, leading
I've been testing this patch (as well as the accompanying patch to btrfs-progs).
It seems to save a decent amount of space (maybe 10-20% according to
df in my testing, YMMV), but I was also noticing a performance penalty
of maybe 5-15%, depending on the application (in my case, I was timing
the
