On 2009-04-18, 09:20 GMT, Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
For testing purposes, I have put all my Gentoo portage (build,
distfiles, etc.) related LVs into one 10G btrfs with
4 subvolumes.
I guess it is the same as my problem at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495683
:)
Best,
Matěj
--
Hello everyone,
Just a quick note about the recently announced purchase of Sun by
Oracle. This does not change Oracle's plans for Btrfs at all, and Btrfs
is still a key project for us.
Please, keep your btrfs contributions and testing coming ;)
-chris
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:37:33AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
Hello everyone,
Just a quick note about the recently announced purchase of Sun by
Oracle. This does not change Oracle's plans for Btrfs at all, and Btrfs
is still a key project for us.
But now Oracle can re-license Solaris and
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 ZbtrFS :)
Sorry couldn't resist. On a more serious note though, is there any
technical benefits that justify continuing to push money in btrfs
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 ZbtrFS :)
Sorry couldn't resist. On a more serious note though, is there any
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Ahmed Kamal
email.ahmedka...@googlemail.com 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 ZbtrFS :)
Sorry couldn't resist. On a more serious note
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Andrey Kuzmin
andrey.v.kuz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Ahmed Kamal
email.ahmedka...@googlemail.com wrote:
But now Oracle can re-license Solaris and merge ZFS with btrfs.
Just kidding, I don't think it would be technically feasible.
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Andrey Kuzmin
andrey.v.kuz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Ahmed Kamal
email.ahmedka...@googlemail.com wrote:
But now Oracle can re-license Solaris and merge ZFS
On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 21:18 +0400, Andrey Kuzmin wrote:
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Andrey Kuzmin
andrey.v.kuz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Ahmed Kamal
email.ahmedka...@googlemail.com
Chris Mason wrote:
Hello everyone,
Just a quick note about the recently announced purchase of Sun by
Oracle. This does not change Oracle's plans for Btrfs at all, and Btrfs
is still a key project for us.
Please, keep your btrfs contributions and testing coming ;)
-chris
Just to chime in
Hello everyone,
I've updated the unstable tree to 2.6.29-rc2 and pushed out some of the
pending fixes. This has my current fixes for fsync latency, which make
btrfs behave much better when mixing synchronous and async writes.
-chris
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe
I believe you mean 2.6.30-rc2
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Chris Mason chris.ma...@oracle.com wrote:
Hello everyone,
I've updated the unstable tree to 2.6.29-rc2 and pushed out some of the
pending fixes. This has my current fixes for fsync latency, which make
btrfs behave much better
On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 15:48 -0500, Mitch Harder (aka DontPanic) wrote:
I believe you mean 2.6.30-rc2
Sorry, updated to 2.6.30-rc2
thanks
Chris
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Chris Mason chris.ma...@oracle.com wrote:
Hello everyone,
I've updated the unstable tree to 2.6.29-rc2 and
Andrey Kuzmin wrote:
snip
Personally, I don't see any. Porting zfs to Linux will cost (quite)
some time and effort, but this is peanuts compared to what's needed to
get btrfs (no offense meant) to maturity level/feature parity with
zfs. The only thing that could prevent this is CDDL
14 matches
Mail list logo
