On 01/23/2013 03:53 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 12:08 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
Mistakenly left this paragraph incomplete, completion follows:
I understand that btrfs is a Different Way Of Doing Things, but I don't
think it flies to tell people 'yeah, the tools you've
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/22555
(Quota reached: can't delete)
When you reach a quota limit, the first intuitive action one takes is
to delete something to make space.
But aparently (and currently) with btrfs one needs to change the quota
and then delete.
I have not
On Thu, 2013-01-24 at 12:36 -0300, Reartes Guillermo wrote:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/22555
(Quota reached: can't delete)
When you reach a quota limit, the first intuitive action one takes is
to delete something to make space.
But aparently (and currently) with
On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:44 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
Just about everything in btrfs is really different :) I'm still wrapping
my head around it too. But as far as possible, the 'legacy' tools should
show something as accurate and useful as they can, I believe.
For mount,
On Thu, 2013-01-24 at 19:56 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:44 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com
wrote:
Just about everything in btrfs is really different :) I'm still
wrapping
my head around it too. But as far as possible, the 'legacy' tools
should
show
On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:27 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
Well that's not the one I was thinking of, actually - I believe I was
hit by cases where some subvols use redundancy, in which case df goes
completely wrong. I'd have to re-install and re-check to be sure of
exactly
On Jan 24, 2013, at 9:30 PM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
2x 80GB virtual disks, mkfs.btrfs -d raid1 -m raid1:
# df -h
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/sdb160G 56K 158G 1% /mnt
Also, copying a 1G file to /mnt, and I end up with:
# df -h
On Wed, 2013-01-16 at 09:53 +0100, Jochen Schmitt wrote:
Hallo,
for Fedora 17 we had a feature to make btrfs to the
standard filesystem of Fedora. This feature was defered
because the fsck utitlities for btrfs was not available
on the stable state for Fedora 17.
So, I would like to ask,
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 12:08 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
Mistakenly left this paragraph incomplete, completion follows:
I understand that btrfs is a Different Way Of Doing Things, but I don't
think it flies to tell people 'yeah, the tools you've relied on for
simple info on filesystems for
On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 23:57:38 +0100, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
I wouldn't read it that rigidly. Its more along the lines of, its more
helpful to file bug reports and post them for discussions because its
easier to keep track of.
I have already filed enough stopper Bugs for btrfs and nothing
On 01/19/2013 10:25 AM, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
I am aware the best way to fix known Bugs is ... to just fix those Bugs.
Maybe I am pronouncing the obvious, but I am wondering, whether you guys
have a required feature list and a regression test-suite?
At least to me, having both and
On Friday, January 18, 2013 10:55:23 Przemek Klosowski wrote:
I used btrfs on my personal desktop for about a year now and it
works fine for me, other than a nagging suspicion that there's an
occasional performance problem at high load.
Yes, this is familiar. I too have used it for over a
On 01/16/2013 12:18 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 3:53 AM, Jochen Schmitt
joc...@herr-schmitt.de mailto:joc...@herr-schmitt.de wrote:
Hallo,
for Fedora 17 we had a feature to make btrfs to the
standard filesystem of Fedora. This feature was defered
because the
On 18/01/13 16:12, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
The most helpful approach would be provide bug reports, when btrfs will
be proposed as a default file system (again). Without bug reports, real
numbers etc. is hard to make any decision. I don't wish to test on my
machine, so I would be glad for hard
On 01/18/2013 01:00 AM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Marc Deop Argemí m...@marcdeop.com wrote:
On Wednesday 16 January 2013 12:18:19 Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=689127
(performance problem with virtual machines)
I
On 18 January 2013 01:19, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/17/2013 07:00 PM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
Yes, I'd veto btrfs as the default as well. I lost a huge chunk of
data on a btrfs partition a while back, with *no* diagnostics,
recovery tools, help from Google, etc.
On 01/17/2013 08:19 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 01/17/2013 07:00 PM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
Yes, I'd veto btrfs as the default as well. I lost a huge chunk of
data on a btrfs partition a while back, with *no* diagnostics,
..
You don't have the power to veto it although highlighting
On 01/18/2013 10:50 AM, Ian Malone wrote:
I suggest sdfs as the new default filesystem, you cannot veto it, but
highlighting critical bugs will be beneficial. Please post bugzilla
links rather than descriptions of the issues. Or: Bugs are not a
replacement for discussion.
A discussion by
On 18 January 2013 17:19, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/18/2013 10:50 AM, Ian Malone wrote:
I suggest sdfs as the new default filesystem, you cannot veto it, but
highlighting critical bugs will be beneficial. Please post bugzilla links
rather than descriptions of the issues.
Hi
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Ian Malone wrote:
Or in other words, don't bring up anything here unless it's not in
bugzilla, if it's not in bugzilla go and put it there before we'll
discuss it.
I wouldn't read it that rigidly. Its more along the lines of, its more
helpful to file
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:14:32PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
Has anyone tested subvolid=xxx works for rootfs yet? I know GRUB 2
will not resolve subvolid, it essentially treats subvols as folders,
but does it only with pathnames, not ID number. If fstab uses
subvolid for boot, then boot
On 01/16/2013 11:41 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 01/16/2013 04:23 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 1/16/13 10:04 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Jan Kratochvil jan.kratoch...@redhat.com
mailto:jan.kratoch...@redhat.com wrote:
It affects also compilation,
On Wednesday 16 January 2013 12:18:19 Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=689127
(performance problem with virtual machines)
I must add that, in my experience, the performance is *bad* not only in virtual
machines but in the whole user experience (I've been
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Marc Deop Argemí m...@marcdeop.com wrote:
On Wednesday 16 January 2013 12:18:19 Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=689127
(performance problem with virtual machines)
I must add that, in my experience, the performance is *bad*
On 01/17/2013 07:00 PM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
Yes, I'd veto btrfs as the default as well. I lost a huge chunk of
data on a btrfs partition a while back, with *no* diagnostics,
recovery tools, help from Google, etc. Screw speed - unless it's rock
solid and *simple* to back up, maintain,
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 09:53:25AM +0100, Jochen Schmitt wrote:
Hallo,
for Fedora 17 we had a feature to make btrfs to the
standard filesystem of Fedora. This feature was defered
because the fsck utitlities for btrfs was not available
on the stable state for Fedora 17.
So, I would like
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:18:19 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
So there are a couple of issues with btrfs which I believe absolutely
must be fixed before it can become the default (both affect
virtualization, coincidentally):
It affects also compilation, GDB was rebuilding for 10-15 minutes
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Jan Kratochvil
jan.kratoch...@redhat.comwrote:
It affects also compilation, GDB was rebuilding for 10-15 minutes instead
of
1 minute. I have provided even a reproducer for 1sec vs. 1min issue.
The Bug just got automatically closed without any human reply as
On 1/16/13 10:04 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Jan Kratochvil jan.kratoch...@redhat.com
mailto:jan.kratoch...@redhat.com wrote:
It affects also compilation, GDB was rebuilding for 10-15 minutes instead
of
1 minute. I have provided even a
On 01/16/2013 04:23 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 1/16/13 10:04 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Jan Kratochvil jan.kratoch...@redhat.com
mailto:jan.kratoch...@redhat.com wrote:
It affects also compilation, GDB was rebuilding for 10-15 minutes instead
of
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Afik Josef just left Red Hat not Fedora...
I haven't seen any recent activity in Fedora from him. Have you?
Rahul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 01/16/2013 12:00 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
snip I haven't seen any recent activity in Fedora from him. Have you?
Rahul
Some patches on the btrfs list on Jan 7 and 8, 2013.
--
Regards,
OldFart
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
I am testing btrfs on kvm guest, currently i have found:
* Bug 894837 - Transient / Intermittent ENOSPC errors with BTRFS and F18
(btrfs gives no space left on device at full or near full filesystem
and heavy io, for example deleting stuff to reclaim space.)
--
devel mailing list
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Afik Josef just left Red Hat not Fedora...
I haven't seen any recent activity in Fedora from him. Have you?
Did you see consistent activity in
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 3:53 AM, Jochen Schmitt joc...@herr-schmitt.dewrote:
Hallo,
for Fedora 17 we had a feature to make btrfs to the
standard filesystem of Fedora. This feature was defered
because the fsck utitlities for btrfs was not available
on the stable state for Fedora 17.
So, I
So there are a couple of issues with btrfs which I believe absolutely
must be fixed before it can become the default
I'd agree, though I'd have a different list of pet bugs.
But that's a subjective judgement. I'd be the first to admit that I'm
pretty risk averse, especially when it comes to
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Zach Brown z...@zabbo.net wrote:
So there are a couple of issues with btrfs which I believe absolutely
must be fixed before it can become the default
I'd agree, though I'd have a different list of pet bugs.
But that's a subjective judgement. I'd be the first
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:12:34AM -0800, Zach Brown wrote:
So there are a couple of issues with btrfs which I believe absolutely
must be fixed before it can become the default
I'd agree, though I'd have a different list of pet bugs.
But that's a subjective judgement. I'd be the first to
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:18:37 -0500
Josef Bacik jo...@toxicpanda.com wrote:
I'm waiting until Anaconda settles down before I pursue btrfs in
Fedora again. Things change too much and Btrfs is too reliant on the
anaconda part working properly to even bother trying to push it
through at this
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.comwrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:12:34AM -0800, Zach Brown wrote:
So there are a couple of issues with btrfs which I believe absolutely
must be fixed before it can become the default
I'd agree, though I'd have a
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 03:36:10PM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.comwrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:12:34AM -0800, Zach Brown wrote:
So there are a couple of issues with btrfs which I believe absolutely
must be fixed
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.comwrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 03:36:10PM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:12:34AM -0800, Zach Brown wrote:
So there
On Wed, 2013-01-16 at 13:17 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:18:37 -0500
Josef Bacik jo...@toxicpanda.com wrote:
I'm waiting until Anaconda settles down before I pursue btrfs in
Fedora again. Things change too much and Btrfs is too reliant on the
anaconda part working
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 07:46:34 +1030
William Brown will...@firstyear.id.au wrote:
Did the root volume (/) Go into it's own subvolume, or is root just
in /?
If root isn't placed into a subvolume, say /root then mounted
as /dev/sda1 subvolid=255 / lets say, you can't snapshot the root fs,
On Thu, 2013-01-17 at 07:46 +1030, William Brown wrote:
On Wed, 2013-01-16 at 13:17 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:18:37 -0500
Josef Bacik jo...@toxicpanda.com wrote:
I'm waiting until Anaconda settles down before I pursue btrfs in
Fedora again. Things change too
On 01/16/2013 01:16 PM, William Brown wrote:
If root isn't placed into a subvolume, say /root then mounted
as /dev/sda1 subvolid=255 / lets say, you can't snapshot the root fs,
which defeats the whole point of using btrfs .
Yes you can -- the btrfs wiki even has this example:
mount -t
ID 258 gen 56580 top level 5 path FS_TREE/root
I take it then that subvolid 258 is marked as / in your fstab?
--
Sincerely,
William Brown
pgp.mit.edu
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindexsearch=0x3C0AC6DAB2F928A2
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 08:13:07 +1030
William Brown will...@firstyear.id.au wrote:
ID 258 gen 56580 top level 5 path FS_TREE/root
I take it then that subvolid 258 is marked as / in your fstab?
yes, via a subvol=root fstab entry.
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--
devel
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 09:53:25AM +0100, Jochen Schmitt wrote:
Hallo,
for Fedora 17 we had a feature to make btrfs to the
standard filesystem of Fedora. This feature was defered
because the fsck utitlities for
To make BTRFS (or any new file-system) the default for a distribution
will be really hard.
My thought on the subject:
-1. IS IT STILL DESIRED TO MAKE BTRFS THE DEFAULT FILE-SYSTEM FOR
FEDORA AT SOME (yet unknown) POINT IN THE FUTURE?
0. DETERMINE A ROOT FILE-SYSTEM CRITERIA (AND/OR a DEFAULT FS
On Jan 16, 2013, at 3:07 PM, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
I thought one of the biggest blockers was the lack of a complete and
stable fsck implementation for it.
I think this is a poor metric for outsiders to require. ZFS has been stable for
some time and does not have an fsck.
51 matches
Mail list logo
