Shridhar Daithankar posted on Thu, 18 Jul 2013 08:29:22 +0530 as
excerpted:
[A]fter you fully defrag the system(every btrfs
mount/partition/filesystem), rebooting immediately with
compress/autodefrag should do it automatically, since then.
Indeed.
It's worth noting that the automated install
On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 09:01:26 +1000, Gareth Pye wrote:
So I'm reading:
* Progs support for parity rebuild. Missing drives upset the progs
today, but the kernel does rebuild parity properly.
wrong? As that sounds like the programs will bork but it can be
mounted and it'll rebuild.
No
btrfs_ioctl_get_fslabel() and btrfs_ioctl_set_fslabel()
used root-fs_info-volume_mutex mutex which caused operations
like balance to block set/get label operation until its
completion and generally balance operation takes a long
time to complete, so it will be annoying to the user when
cli appears
On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 19:18:18 +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
btrfs_ioctl_get_fslabel() and btrfs_ioctl_set_fslabel()
used root-fs_info-volume_mutex mutex which caused operations
like balance to block set/get label operation until its
completion and generally balance operation takes a long
time to
Indeed! That is a VERY good question and one I have not seen a good
answer to thus far. A traditional defragger in the Windows realm, which
defrags on a global basis rather than directory by directory, file by
file, also restacks the file and directory structure in a way that
minimizes free
I was able to recover the filesystem using the btrfsck from git (Btrfs
v0.20-rc1-358-g194aa4a) .
I encourage btrfsck to output a line similar to Errors found. Run
again with --repair to attempt repairs. when errors are found.
From using other fsck tools, I expected repairs to be attempted unless
Should I interpret the different used amounts (902.01GB vs 902.03GB)
on my recovered RAID1 filesystem as that not all data is actually
mirrored and so I should run a balance? The devices in the filesystem
below are the same make/model drives.
# btrfs fi show
Label: 'mcmedia' uuid:
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 11:11:03AM -0400, Sandy McArthur wrote:
Should I interpret the different used amounts (902.01GB vs 902.03GB)
on my recovered RAID1 filesystem as that not all data is actually
mirrored and so I should run a balance? The devices in the filesystem
below are the same
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 04:21:28PM +0100, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 11:11:03AM -0400, Sandy McArthur wrote:
Should I interpret the different used amounts (902.01GB vs 902.03GB)
on my recovered RAID1 filesystem as that not all data is actually
mirrored and so I should run a
On Jul 18, 2013, at 11:33 AM, David Sterba dste...@suse.cz wrote:
The missing data blocks return IO error and the valid data can be read.
Sounds like if I have a degraded 'single' volume, I can simply cp or rsync
everything from that volume to another, and I'll end up with a successful copy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 18/07/13 13:05, Chris Murphy wrote:
Sounds like if I have a degraded 'single' volume, I can simply cp or
rsync everything from that volume to another, and I'll end up with a
successful copy of the surviving data. True?
Not quite. I did it with
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 02:59:58PM -0700, Roger Binns wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 18/07/13 13:05, Chris Murphy wrote:
Sounds like if I have a degraded 'single' volume, I can simply cp or
rsync everything from that volume to another, and I'll end up with a
12 matches
Mail list logo
