Yes, it's not enough reliable for all users, and it may be
possible, but disk format may be the last point to change.
If we want to change it, we need to discuss its necessity
carefully and implement it [almost] without incompatibility.
Regards,
taruisi
(2010/01/12 16:08), Piavlo wrote:
Hi,
On Tuesday 12 January 2010 08.08:26 Piavlo wrote:
Maintaining snapshot hierarchy by external application is not reliable
and error prone
compared to maintaining it withing the btrfs itself,
probably by adding the parent treeid field for every shapshot/subvolume.
What should, in your
Adrian von Bidder wrote:
Hi,
On Tuesday 12 January 2010 08.08:26 Piavlo wrote:
Maintaining snapshot hierarchy by external application is not reliable
and error prone
compared to maintaining it withing the btrfs itself,
probably by adding the parent treeid field for every
On a single disk btrfs setup, such as for a desktop computer, what are
the implecations of creating your btrfs partition with '-m single'?
At first, I assumed I would want a single disk desktop setup to be
configured as 'single'. But that may not be the case for metadata.
I see that the default
Mitch Harder wrote:
On a single disk btrfs setup, such as for a desktop computer, what are
the implecations of creating your btrfs partition with '-m single'?
At first, I assumed I would want a single disk desktop setup to be
configured as 'single'. But that may not be the case for
I wrote a script generating snapshots of several subvolumes. But the script
failed after taking the first snapshot.
I then did it by hand:
btrfsctl -s /.backups/2010-01-12.1/home /home
operation complete
Btrfs v0.19-4-gab8fb4c
echo $?
1
Usually commands return 0 if everything went ok (and it
df is a very loaded question in btrfs. This gives us a way to get the per-space
usage information so we can tell exactly what is in use where. This will help
us figure out ENOSPC problems, and help users better understand where their disk
space is going.
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 11:24:39AM -0800, Sage Weil wrote:
Hi Chris,
What is the motivation behind the two phases of snapshot creation
(create_pending_snapshot, finish_pending_snapshot)? Is it just to avoid
putting a reference to the snap subvol inside the snapped version of the
subvol
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010, Chris Mason wrote:
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 11:24:39AM -0800, Sage Weil wrote:
Hi Chris,
What is the motivation behind the two phases of snapshot creation
(create_pending_snapshot, finish_pending_snapshot)? Is it just to avoid
putting a reference to the snap
