Torbjørn schrieb:
>> Just curious: What would be the benefit of increasing the checkpoint
>> interval?
> Laptops typically spin down disks to save power. If btrfs forces a write
> every 30 second, you have to spin it back up.
I'd expect btrfs not to write to the disk when a checkpoint is reached
Hello everybody.
I have run into serious trouble with my btrfs volume.
As an example after adding two disks to a btrfs volume they show up as
filled with data in btrfs filesystem show.
In btrfs fi df /mnt it says
Data RAID1: total=4.64TB, used=11.46TB
System.. (total > used so i think it is fine
On 8/2/13 7:34 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 7/10/13 11:12 AM, David Sterba wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 07:49:53PM +0100, Filipe David Borba Manana wrote:
>>> The module cmds-restore.c was defining its own next_leaf()
>>> function, which did exactly the same as btrfs_next_leaf()
>>> from ctree
Before updating the super block's flags, which is a non-atomic
operation, grab the super_lock in the fs_info structure. At
the moment only 2 different code paths can update these flags
in parallel:
1) when adding a new device
2) writing all super block copies to disk
Signed-off-by: Filipe David B
On 08/03/2013 07:28 PM, Kai Krakow wrote:
Mike Audia schrieb:
I believe 30 sec is the default for the checkpoint interval. Is this
adjustable? --
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at
Mike Audia schrieb:
> I believe 30 sec is the default for the checkpoint interval. Is this
> adjustable? --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-
Martin schrieb:
> Which is 'best' or 'faster'?
>
> Take a snapshot of an existing backup and then "rsync --delete" into
> that to make a backup of some other filesystem?
>
> Or use "rsync --link" to link a new backup tree against a previous
> backup tree for the some other filesystem?
I'm doin
This change adds a new option to the restore command, named -x,
that makes it restore file extented attributes too. This is an
optional behaviour and it's disabled by default.
Signed-off-by: Filipe David Borba Manana
---
V2: Added missing new line at end of error message.
V3: Return with 0 when
On Sat, Aug 03, 2013 at 07:39:01AM -0400, Mike Audia wrote:
> > > Another newbie question is which version of the kernel do I need to
> > > have in order to cleanly apply this patch? I am finding that it fails
> > > to apply to the current stable kernel code (as of now it is v3.10.4)
> > > which m
> > Another newbie question is which version of the kernel do I need to
> > have in order to cleanly apply this patch? I am finding that it fails
> > to apply to the current stable kernel code (as of now it is v3.10.4)
> > which makes me think your patch has to be applied to a newer one? Are
> >
Mike Audia posted on Fri, 02 Aug 2013 16:58:42 -0400 as excerpted:
>> From: David Sterba There were a few requests to tune the interval. This
>> finally made me to finish the patch and will send it in a second.
>
> Thank you, David and to others who kindly replied to my post. I will
> try your p
Hi Martin,
though I can't determine which is 'better' for you because I don't
know what your aims are, I can recommend 'btrfs snapshot' together
with 'rsync --inplace'. It is 'better' in the sense of disk-usage,
because only the modified parts of files take up space in your
snapshots. That only ap
12 matches
Mail list logo
