On 22/04/2017 22:21, Hans van Kranenburg wrote:
On 04/22/2017 06:45 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 4:26 AM, Hans van Kranenburg
wrote:
== Thinking out of the box ==
Technically, converting from DUP to single could also mean:
* Flipping one bit in the block group type flags
On 04/22/2017 11:17 AM, Duncan wrote:
> Hans van Kranenburg posted on Fri, 21 Apr 2017 12:26:18 +0200 as
> excerpted:
>
>> So, I used the clone functionality of the underlying iSCSI target to get
>> a writable throw-away version of the filesystem to experiment with
>> (great!).
>
> Please, I'm ra
On 04/22/2017 10:22 PM, Hans van Kranenburg wrote:
> On 04/22/2017 06:55 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Chris Murph
>>> The proper way to do this in Btrfs terms would be to COW all of the
>>> changed chunk tree nodes elsewhere, all the unneeded items are
>>> removed. N
On 04/22/2017 06:55 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Chris Murph
>> The proper way to do this in Btrfs terms would be to COW all of the
>> changed chunk tree nodes elsewhere, all the unneeded items are
>> removed. New CRCs. And then once that succeeds and is committed to
On 04/22/2017 06:45 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 4:26 AM, Hans van Kranenburg
> wrote:
>
>>
>> == Thinking out of the box ==
>>
>> Technically, converting from DUP to single could also mean:
>> * Flipping one bit in the block group type flags to 0 for each block
>> group item
On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Chris Murph
> The proper way to do this in Btrfs terms would be to COW all of the
> changed chunk tree nodes elsewhere, all the unneeded items are
> removed. New CRCs. And then once that succeeds and is committed to
> stable media, new supers written to point to th
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 4:26 AM, Hans van Kranenburg
wrote:
>
> == Thinking out of the box ==
>
> Technically, converting from DUP to single could also mean:
> * Flipping one bit in the block group type flags to 0 for each block
> group item
> * Flipping one bit in the chunk type flags and removi
Hans van Kranenburg posted on Fri, 21 Apr 2017 12:26:18 +0200 as
excerpted:
> So, I used the clone functionality of the underlying iSCSI target to get
> a writable throw-away version of the filesystem to experiment with
> (great!).
Please, I'm rather sure you know all this and have setup your sys
On 2017-04-21 07:13, Hans van Kranenburg wrote:
On 04/21/2017 12:31 PM, Hans van Kranenburg wrote:
Doh,
On 04/21/2017 12:26 PM, Hans van Kranenburg wrote:
[...]
== Thinking out of the box ==
Technically, converting from DUP to single could also mean:
* Flipping one bit in the block group typ
On 04/21/2017 12:31 PM, Hans van Kranenburg wrote:
> Doh,
>
> On 04/21/2017 12:26 PM, Hans van Kranenburg wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> == Thinking out of the box ==
>>
>> Technically, converting from DUP to single could also mean:
>> * Flipping one bit in the block group type flags to 0 for each block
>>
Doh,
On 04/21/2017 12:26 PM, Hans van Kranenburg wrote:
> [...]
>
> == Thinking out of the box ==
>
> Technically, converting from DUP to single could also mean:
> * Flipping one bit in the block group type flags to 0 for each block
> group item
> * Flipping one bit in the chunk type flags and r
This is a followup to my previous post "About free space fragmentation,
metadata write amplification and (no)ssd", exploring how good or bad
btrfs can handle filesystem that are larger than your average desktop
computer.
One of the things I'm looking at to do is to convert the metadata of a
large
12 matches
Mail list logo
