Re: [PATCH] btrfs: implement FS_IOC_GETFLAGS/SETFLAGS/GETVERSION

2009-04-23 Thread Christoph Hellwig
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 10:00:55AM -0400, Chris Ball wrote: Hi Christoph, Add support for the standard attributes set via chattr and read vis lsattr. Currently we store the attributes in the flags value in the btrfs inode, but I wonder whether we should split it into two so

Re: LVM vs btrfs as a volume manager for SANs

2009-04-23 Thread Chris Mason
On Wed, 2009-04-22 at 21:20 +0200, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote: Right now, the majority of Linux users probably have LVM on their SAN devices (i.e those being iSCSI targets). Using LVM on a SAN device is easy: just create a new logical volume or its snapshot, make it a target to iSCSI

Re: [REVIEW] Btrfs: Introduce ioctl for compressed size of file

2009-04-23 Thread Chris Mason
On Sat, 2009-04-18 at 23:56 -0400, Chris Ball wrote: Hi, We need to add an ioctl that reports on the actual size of the compressed file. Here's an attempt at that ioctl, please review. The search code is based on the clone ioctl. Some specific questions: Thanks for doing

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: implement FS_IOC_GETFLAGS/SETFLAGS/GETVERSION

2009-04-23 Thread Chris Mason
On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 10:37 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: Add support for the standard attributes set via chattr and read vis lsattr. Currently we store the attributes in the flags value in the btrfs inode, but I wonder whether we should split it into two so that we don't have to keep

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: fix throttle_on_drops deadlock with user transactions

2009-04-23 Thread Sage Weil
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Chris Mason wrote: On Mon, 2009-04-13 at 09:40 -0700, Sage Weil wrote: Starting in b7ec40d7845bffca8bb3af2ea3f192d6257bbe21, drop_dirty_roots() tries to avoid generating delayed refs in a transaction that is currently closing (and trying to flush dirty refs out) by

Re: LVM vs btrfs as a volume manager for SANs

2009-04-23 Thread Tomasz Chmielewski
Chris Mason schrieb: However, with btrfs, I'm not sure about: - what happens if SAN machine crashes while the iSCSI file images were being written to; with LVM and its block devices, I'm somehow more confident it wouldn't make more data loss than necessary If iscsi is writing with