On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 11:21:06PM +0200, Freek Dijkstra wrote:
Chris Mason wrote:
Basically we have two different things to tune. First the block layer
and then btrfs.
And then we need to setup a fio job file that hammers on all the ssds at
once. I'd have it use adio/dio and talk
On 2010-08-05 16:51, Chris Mason wrote:
And then we need to setup a fio job file that hammers on all the ssds at
once. I'd have it use adio/dio and talk directly to the drives. I'd do
something like this for the fio job file, but Jens Axboe is cc'd and he
might make another suggestion on the
On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 01:55:21PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 2010-08-05 16:51, Chris Mason wrote:
And then we need to setup a fio job file that hammers on all the ssds at
once. I'd have it use adio/dio and talk directly to the drives. I'd do
something like this for the fio job file, but
Something is deeply wrong here. Raw block device access has a 1:1
mapping between logical and physical block numbers. They really should
never be non-contiguous.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More
Returns a file's size on disk. Based on a patch by Chris Ball, improved
following suggestions by Chris Mason and Miao Xie.
Minimal example:
#include sys/ioctl.h
#include fcntl.h
#include stdint.h
#include stdio.h
#define BTRFS_IOCTL_MAGIC 0x94
#define BTRFS_IOC_COMPR_SIZE
On Monday 02 August 2010, Miao Xie wrote:
I think you need use lock_extent()/unlock_extent() to enclose
btrfs_get_extent(), but I didn't find lock_extent().
Yeah, I think that was missing in the original patch as well. Hope the
latest iteration is OK.
CU
Uli
--
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF:
On Viernes, 6 de Agosto de 2010 14:21:44 Ulrich Hecht escribió:
ioctl(d, BTRFS_IOC_COMPR_SIZE, size);
I wonder...it's not possible to fit this into FIEMAP somehow? I
though that FIEMAP has been designed with compressed data in
mind.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe
On 6 August 2010 20:23, Leonidas Spyropoulos artafi...@gmail.com wrote:
Do I have to change the partition ID flag of each partition?
Currently is set to fd (Linux Raid autodetect) for used from mdadm
mkfs.btrfs supports that or needs to be 83 (Linux) ?
FD is for mdraid integrated into the
Here is the latest set of performance runs from the 2.6.35-rc5 tree.
Included is a refresh of all the other filesystems with some changes for
barriers on and off since this has been somewhat of a hot topic recently.
New data linked in to the history graphs here:
On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 02:30:39PM +0300, Sami Liedes wrote:
On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 12:22:14AM +0200, Oystein Viggen wrote:
IIRC, the limit on hard links is per directory. That is, if you put
each hard link into its own directory, there's basically no limit to the
amount of hard links you
On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 01:44:11PM -0500, Steven Pratt wrote:
Here is the latest set of performance runs from the 2.6.35-rc5 tree.
Included is a refresh of all the other filesystems with some changes
for barriers on and off since this has been somewhat of a hot topic
recently.
New data
I just had a bug reported (assigned to me) in the Gentoo Linux distro
about a missing option (-D) in btrfscrl. Looking into it, it
appears this feature is post the 0.19 tag of btrfs-progs. I would
like to get a more up-to-date btrfs-progs into Gentoo, but I would
like to follow the upstream
On Saturday 07 of August 2010 00:24:08 Leonidas Spyropoulos wrote:
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Sebastian 'gonX' Jensen
g...@overclocked.net wrote:
On 6 August 2010 20:23, Leonidas Spyropoulos artafi...@gmail.com wrote:
Do I have to change the partition ID flag of each partition?
On 7 August 2010 00:24, Leonidas Spyropoulos artafi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Sebastian 'gonX' Jensen
g...@overclocked.net wrote:
On 6 August 2010 20:23, Leonidas Spyropoulos artafi...@gmail.com wrote:
Do I have to change the partition ID flag of each partition?
14 matches
Mail list logo
