-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/24/2011 10:04 PM, Arand Nash wrote:
> Btrfs is unfortunately unable to look for snapshots by name above the
> currently set default root (I do not know why exectly), it can however
> find them by id anywhere.
Ok, so looking up subvols by name us
On 10/26/2011 07:18 AM, Myroslav Opyr wrote:
> liubo cn.fujitsu.com> writes:
>
>> On 04/22/2011 09:28 AM, Chris Mason wrote:
>>> Right, at the very least we want to just use one bit of that field
>>> instead of all 8. But keeping a sub-transid and putting that in the
>>> generation field of the
2011/10/25 Josef Bacik :
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 04:15:45PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:05:12AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> > On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 04:25:02PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Attached is a perf-report. I have included the whole report,
liubo cn.fujitsu.com> writes:
>
> On 04/22/2011 09:28 AM, Chris Mason wrote:
> > Right, at the very least we want to just use one bit of that field
> > instead of all 8. But keeping a sub-transid and putting that in the
> > generation field of the file extent instead can get us the same benefi
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011, Christian Brunner wrote:
> 2011/10/25 Sage Weil :
> > On Tue, 25 Oct 2011, Josef Bacik wrote:
> >> At this point it seems like the biggest problem with latency in ceph-osd
> >> is not related to btrfs, the latency seems to all be from the fact that
> >> ceph-osd is fsyncing a b
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 04:15:45PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:05:12AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 04:25:02PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
> > >
> > > Attached is a perf-report. I have included the whole report, so that
> > > you can see the
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:05:12AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 04:25:02PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
> >
> > Attached is a perf-report. I have included the whole report, so that
> > you can see the difference between the good and the bad
> > btrfs-endio-wri.
> >
>
> W
2011/10/25 Sage Weil :
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2011, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> At this point it seems like the biggest problem with latency in ceph-osd
>> is not related to btrfs, the latency seems to all be from the fact that
>> ceph-osd is fsyncing a block dev for whatever reason.
>
> There is one place whe
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011, Josef Bacik wrote:
> At this point it seems like the biggest problem with latency in ceph-osd
> is not related to btrfs, the latency seems to all be from the fact that
> ceph-osd is fsyncing a block dev for whatever reason.
There is one place where we sync_file_range() on t
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:06:49AM -0700, Sage Weil wrote:
> > > - When I run ceph with btrfs snaps disabled, the situation is getting
> > > slightly better. I can run an OSD for about 3 days without problems,
> > > but then again the load increases.
2011/10/25 Josef Bacik :
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 04:25:02PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
>> 2011/10/25 Josef Bacik :
>> > On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 01:56:48PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
[...]
>> >>
>> >> In our Ceph-OSD server we have 4 disks with 4 btrfs filesystems. Ceph
>> >> tries to ba
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 04:25:02PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
> 2011/10/25 Josef Bacik :
> > On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 01:56:48PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
> >> 2011/10/24 Josef Bacik :
> >> > On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:06:49AM -0700, Sage Weil wrote:
> >> >> [adding linux-btrfs to cc]
> >
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 04:25:02PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
> 2011/10/25 Josef Bacik :
> > On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 01:56:48PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
> >> 2011/10/24 Josef Bacik :
> >> > On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:06:49AM -0700, Sage Weil wrote:
> >> >> [adding linux-btrfs to cc]
> >
2011/10/25 Josef Bacik :
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 01:56:48PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
>> 2011/10/24 Josef Bacik :
>> > On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:06:49AM -0700, Sage Weil wrote:
>> >> [adding linux-btrfs to cc]
>> >>
>> >> Josef, Chris, any ideas on the below issues?
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 24
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 01:56:48PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
> 2011/10/24 Josef Bacik :
> > On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:06:49AM -0700, Sage Weil wrote:
> >> [adding linux-btrfs to cc]
> >>
> >> Josef, Chris, any ideas on the below issues?
> >>
> >> On Mon, 24 Oct 2011, Christian Brunner wrote:
> From: linux-btrfs-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-btrfs-
> ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Stephane CHAZELAS
>
> rsync won't work if you've got snapshot volumes though (unless
> (etc blah)
Please read the OP. He is currently using rsync to backup his snapshots and
is not worried about
2011-10-25, 07:46(-04), Edward Ned Harvey:
[...]
> My suggestion to the OP of this thread is to use rsync for now, wait for
> btrfs send, or switch to zfs.
[...]
rsync won't work if you've got snapshot volumes though (unless
you're prepared to have a backup copy thousands of times the
size of the
> From: linux-btrfs-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-btrfs-
> ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Stephane CHAZELAS
>
> 2011-10-24, 09:59(-04), Edward Ned Harvey:
> [...]
> > If you are reading the raw device underneath btrfs, you are
> > not getting the benefit of the filesystem checksumming.
Looks good,
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig
--
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-info.html
Looks good,
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig
--
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-info.html
Looks good,
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig
--
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-info.html
Looks good,
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig
--
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-info.html
Looks good,
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig
--
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-info.html
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:06:49AM -0700, Sage Weil wrote:
> > - When I run ceph with btrfs snaps disabled, the situation is getting
> > slightly better. I can run an OSD for about 3 days without problems,
> > but then again the load increases. This time, I can see that the
> > ceph-osd (blkdev_iss
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 3:54 PM, dima wrote:
>>> Hi Fajar,
>>> I think I am doing just this, but my subvolumes are not visible under
>>> /boot. I
>>> have all my subvolumes set up like this:
>>> /path/to/subvolid_0/boot< a simple directory bind-mounted to /
>>> /path/to/subvolid_0/__active< my /
On 10/25/2011 05:01 PM, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 9:00 AM, dima wrote:
>> Fajar A. Nugraha fajar.net> writes:
>>
>>> AFAIK you have three possible ways to use /boot on btrfs:
>>>
>>> (1) put /boot on subvolid=0, don't change the default subvolume. That
>>> works, but all
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 9:00 AM, dima wrote:
> Fajar A. Nugraha fajar.net> writes:
>
>> AFAIK you have three possible ways to use /boot on btrfs:
>>
>> (1) put /boot on subvolid=0, don't change the default subvolume. That
>> works, but all your snapshot/subvols will be visible under /boot. Some
>
27 matches
Mail list logo
