Chris Murphy posted on Mon, 12 Sep 2016 08:48:49 -0600 as excerpted:
> On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 10:54 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On the bright side, the double-whammy of being under such tight
>> filesystem size constraints, coupled with finding out you have less
>> than half
On 12 September 2016 at 19:55, Austin S. Hemmelgarn
wrote:
> I'm not sure about gparted, but the default behavior for mkfs is as follows:
> 1. Is the device rotational? (check /sys/block//rotational). If
> not, do some extra stuff to try and ID it as an SSD. If it is an
On 2016-09-12 14:46, Imran Geriskovan wrote:
Wait wait wait a second:
This is 256 MB SINGLE created
by GPARTED, which is the replacement of MANUALLY
CREATED 127MB DUP which is now non-existant..
Which I was not aware it was a DUP at the time..
Peeww... Small btrfs is full of surprises.. ;)
> Wait wait wait a second:
> This is 256 MB SINGLE created
> by GPARTED, which is the replacement of MANUALLY
> CREATED 127MB DUP which is now non-existant..
> Which I was not aware it was a DUP at the time..
> Peeww... Small btrfs is full of surprises.. ;)
What's more, I also have another 128MB
> btrfs filesystem df /mnt/back/boot
> Data, single: total=8.00MiB, used=0.00B
> System, DUP: total=8.00MiB, used=16.00KiB
> Metadata, DUP: total=32.00MiB, used=112.00KiB
> GlobalReserve, single: total=16.00MiB, used=0.00B
> IT IS DUP!!
Wait wait wait a second:
This is 256 MB SINGLE created
by
On 2016-09-12 10:51, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Henk Slager wrote:
FWIW, I use BTRFS for /boot, but it's not for snapshotting or even the COW,
it's for DUP mode and the error recovery it provides. Most people don't
think about this if it hasn't
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Henk Slager wrote:
>> FWIW, I use BTRFS for /boot, but it's not for snapshotting or even the COW,
>> it's for DUP mode and the error recovery it provides. Most people don't
>> think about this if it hasn't happened to them, but if you get a bad
On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 10:54 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> On the bright side, the double-whammy of being under such tight
> filesystem size constraints, coupled with finding out you have less than
> half the space of the filesystem actually available due to default-mixed-
> mode
On 2016-09-12 10:09, Henk Slager wrote:
FWIW, I use BTRFS for /boot, but it's not for snapshotting or even the COW,
it's for DUP mode and the error recovery it provides. Most people don't
think about this if it hasn't happened to them, but if you get a bad read
from /boot when loading the
> FWIW, I use BTRFS for /boot, but it's not for snapshotting or even the COW,
> it's for DUP mode and the error recovery it provides. Most people don't
> think about this if it hasn't happened to them, but if you get a bad read
> from /boot when loading the kernel or initrd, it can essentially
>> Just to note again:
>> Ordinary 127MB btrfs gives "Out of space" around 64MB payload. 128MB is
>> usable to the end.
> Thanks, and just to clarify for others possibly following along or
> googling it up later, that's single mode (as opposed to dup mode) for at
> least data, if in normal
On 2016-09-12 08:54, Imran Geriskovan wrote:
On 9/11/16, Chris Murphy wrote:
Something else that's screwy in that bug that I just realized, why is
it not defaulting to mixed-block groups on a 100MiB fallocated file? I
thought mixed-bg was the default below a certain
On 9/11/16, Chris Murphy wrote:
> Something else that's screwy in that bug that I just realized, why is
> it not defaulting to mixed-block groups on a 100MiB fallocated file? I
> thought mixed-bg was the default below a certain size like 2GiB or
> whatever?
>> With an
On 2016-09-11 15:51, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 19:46:32 CEST schrieb Hugo Mills:
On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 09:13:28PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 16:44:23 CEST schrieb Duncan:
* Metadata, and thus mixed-bg, defaults to DUP
On 2016-09-11 15:21, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 21:56:07 CEST schrieb Imran Geriskovan:
On 9/11/16, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
Martin Steigerwald posted on Sun, 11 Sep 2016 17:32:44 +0200 as excerpted:
What is the smallest recommended fs size for
Chris Murphy posted on Sun, 11 Sep 2016 21:03:04 -0600 as excerpted:
> The man page says:
> "The recommended size for the mixed mode is for filesystems less than
> 1GiB." But in this case recommended !=default which requires some mental
> gymnastics to rectify. If mixed-bg becomes obsolete upon
Imran Geriskovan posted on Sun, 11 Sep 2016 21:56:07 +0300 as excerpted:
> On 9/11/16, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Martin Steigerwald posted on Sun, 11 Sep 2016 17:32:44 +0200 as
>> excerpted:
What is the smallest recommended fs size for btrfs?
Can we say size should be in
On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 8:00 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Chris Murphy posted on Sun, 11 Sep 2016 14:33:18 -0600 as excerpted:
>
>> Something else that's screwy in that bug that I just realized, why is it
>> not defaulting to mixed-block groups on a 100MiB fallocated file? I
>>
Chris Murphy posted on Sun, 11 Sep 2016 14:33:18 -0600 as excerpted:
> Something else that's screwy in that bug that I just realized, why is it
> not defaulting to mixed-block groups on a 100MiB fallocated file? I
> thought mixed-bg was the default below a certain size like 2GiB or
> whatever?
On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Imran Geriskovan
wrote:
> What is the smallest recommended fs size for btrfs?
It depends on the layout. And there is some confusion about the mkfs
command message it returns when it doesn't work out.
Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 19:46:32 CEST schrieb Hugo Mills:
> On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 09:13:28PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> > Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 16:44:23 CEST schrieb Duncan:
> > > * Metadata, and thus mixed-bg, defaults to DUP mode on a single-device
> > > filesystem
On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 09:13:28PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 16:44:23 CEST schrieb Duncan:
> > * Metadata, and thus mixed-bg, defaults to DUP mode on a single-device
> > filesystem (except on ssd where I actually still use it myself, and
> > recommend it
Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 21:56:07 CEST schrieb Imran Geriskovan:
> On 9/11/16, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> > Martin Steigerwald posted on Sun, 11 Sep 2016 17:32:44 +0200 as excerpted:
> >>> What is the smallest recommended fs size for btrfs?
> >>> Can we say size should be in
Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 16:44:23 CEST schrieb Duncan:
> * Metadata, and thus mixed-bg, defaults to DUP mode on a single-device
> filesystem (except on ssd where I actually still use it myself, and
> recommend it except for ssds that do firmware dedupe). In mixed-mode
> this means two
On 9/11/16, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Martin Steigerwald posted on Sun, 11 Sep 2016 17:32:44 +0200 as excerpted:
>>> What is the smallest recommended fs size for btrfs?
>>> Can we say size should be in multiples of 64MB?
>> Do you want to know the smalled *recommended* or the smallest
Martin Steigerwald posted on Sun, 11 Sep 2016 17:32:44 +0200 as excerpted:
> Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 18:27:30 CEST schrieben Sie:
>> What is the smallest recommended fs size for btrfs?
>>
>> - There are mentions of 256MB around the net.
>> - Gparted reserves minimum of 256MB for btrfs.
Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 18:27:30 CEST schrieben Sie:
> What is the smallest recommended fs size for btrfs?
>
> - There are mentions of 256MB around the net.
> - Gparted reserves minimum of 256MB for btrfs.
>
> With an ordinary partition on a single disk,
> fs created with just
27 matches
Mail list logo