Swâmi Petaramesh posted on Sat, 05 Apr 2014 00:35:08 +0200 as excerpted:
[Multiple machines, multiple distros, all going slow over time, the
common thread being btrfs on all.]
All those machines do mainly boring office tasks, email, web surf,
word processing, spreadsheets. No databases except
Le samedi 5 avril 2014 10:12:17 Duncan wrote [excellent performance advice
about disabling Akonadi in BTRFS etc]:
Thanks Duncan for all this excellent discussion.
However I'm still rather puzzled with a filesystem for which advice is if you
want tolerable performance, you have to turn off
Swâmi Petaramesh posted on Sat, 05 Apr 2014 13:10:13 +0200 as excerpted:
Le samedi 5 avril 2014 10:12:17 Duncan wrote [excellent performance
advice about disabling Akonadi in BTRFS etc]:
Thanks Duncan for all this excellent discussion.
However I'm still rather puzzled with a filesystem
On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 01:10:13PM +0200, Swâmi Petaramesh wrote:
Le samedi 5 avril 2014 10:12:17 Duncan wrote [excellent performance advice
about disabling Akonadi in BTRFS etc]:
Thanks Duncan for all this excellent discussion.
However I'm still rather puzzled with a filesystem for which
On 4-4-14 10:02:27 Swâmi Petaramesh wrote:
However I'm still concerned with chronic BTRFS dreadful performance
and still find that BRTFS degrades much over time even with periodic
defrag and best practices etc.
Yeah, I have experienced this, too. I can't say what your experience
was, but mine
Garry T. Williams posted on Sat, 05 Apr 2014 10:26:06 -0400 as excerpted:
I no longer see the slow degradation over time because I made the
following directories recursively nodatacow:
.local/share/akonadi
...snip...
OK, we now have a second link to akonadi (and browsers) and slowness,
static void btrfs_release_extent_buffer_page(struct extent_buffer *eb,
unsigned long start_idx)
{
unsigned long index;
unsigned long num_pages;
struct page *page;
int mapped = !test_bit(EXTENT_BUFFER_DUMMY, eb-bflags);
On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 08:37:21AM -0700, Marc MERLIN wrote:
static void btrfs_release_extent_buffer_page(struct extent_buffer *eb,
unsigned long start_idx)
{
unsigned long index;
unsigned long num_pages;
struct page *page;
hi all,
Btrfs falls into hang when I ran iozone test with the following configuration:
./iozone -s 8g -i 0 -i 2 -i 1 -t 4 -r 4k -+w 50 -+y 20 -+C 60 -F
/mnt/btrfs/test1 /mnt/btrfs/test2 /mnt/btrfs/test3 /mnt/btrfs/test
The bug can be very easily triggered when running this test in my PC.
My PC
Hi Filipe,
Can you please explain more what is the scenario you are worried about.
Let's say we have two FS trees (subvolumes) subv1 and subv2, subv2
being a RO snapshot of subv1. And they have a shared subtree at
logical==X. Now we change subv1, so its subtree is COW'ed and some
other logical
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Marc MERLIN m...@merlins.org wrote:
On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 04:29:35PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Convert man page for btrfs-zero-log
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo quwen...@cn.fujitsu.com
---
Documentation/Makefile | 2 +-
On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 04:00:27PM -0600, cwillu wrote:
+'btrfs-zero-log' will remove the log tree if log tree is corrupt, which
will
+allow you to mount the filesystem again.
+
+The common case where this happens has been fixed a long time ago,
+so it is unlikely that you will see
On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 04:00:27PM -0600, cwillu wrote:
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Marc MERLIN m...@merlins.org wrote:
On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 04:29:35PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Convert man page for btrfs-zero-log
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo quwen...@cn.fujitsu.com
---
On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 03:02:03PM -0700, Marc MERLIN wrote:
On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 04:00:27PM -0600, cwillu wrote:
+'btrfs-zero-log' will remove the log tree if log tree is corrupt, which
will
+allow you to mount the filesystem again.
+
+The common case where this happens has
On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 03:02:03PM -0700, Marc MERLIN wrote:
On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 04:00:27PM -0600, cwillu wrote:
+'btrfs-zero-log' will remove the log tree if log tree is corrupt, which
will
+allow you to mount the filesystem again.
+
+The common case where this happens has
On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 11:03:46PM +0100, Hugo Mills wrote:
As far as I recall, -orecovery is read-write. -oro,recovery is
read-only.
Yes, we both corrected my Email at the same time :)
Actually it's better/worse than that. From my notes at
On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 04:20:41PM +0100, Filipe David Borba Manana wrote:
This new send flag makes send calculate first the amount of new file data (in
bytes)
the send root has relatively to the parent root, or for the case of a
non-incremental
send, the total amount of file data we will
On 04/04/2014 20:39, David Sterba wrote:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 10:13:56PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
From: Anand Jain anand.j...@oracle.com
This fix will ensure all SB copies on the disk is zeroed
when the disk is intentionally removed. This helps to
better manage disks in the user land.
From: Anand Jain anand.j...@oracle.com
This fix will ensure all SB copies on the disk is zeroed
when the disk is intentionally removed. This helps to
better manage disks in the user land.
This version of patch also merges the Zach patch as below.
btrfs: don't double brelse on device rm
19 matches
Mail list logo
