Henk Slager posted on Thu, 25 Feb 2016 03:07:12 +0100 as excerpted:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 1:19 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> I've not seen anyone else explicitly list the following as a practical
>> btrfs send/receive backup strategy, bu
there)
That /is/ surprising. No explanation, there, tho I don't know enough
about such errors to know if they /always/ tend to show up in the logs,
or not, only that mine generally have.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
Duncan posted on Tue, 23 Feb 2016 23:17:06 + as excerpted:
> Marc MERLIN posted on Tue, 23 Feb 2016 13:59:11 -0800 as excerpted:
>
>> I have a freshly created md5 array, with drives that I specifically
>> scanned one by one block by block, and for good measure, I also sca
ers here with far more knowledge
in that area, including what to do to try to fix it, than I have, and the
various options to fix it have been posted multiple times by now, and
likely will be posted here again.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program ha
ck the topic link on the left to see the
individual patches, which here don't include individual changelogs as
they're in the 00/19 post.)
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/53306
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a l
rieval of individual files isn't envisioned. Obviously for
glacier or similar storage, an intermediate encryption step could be
added, with encryption to whatever strength deemed appropriate, if
considered necessary to thwart the NSA and similar nation-level advanced-
persistent-threats on clou
but as someone who appreciates
the usefulness of btrfs restore, I definitely like the idea! =:^)
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
--
To unsubscribe from this lis
reate trivial patches to accomplish that tweak, even if it's
not exactly the code a real C coder would choose to use, which is exactly
what I've done here. So now, unless some other atime option is
specified, my filesystems are all mounted noatime. =:^)
--
Duncan - List replies preferr
the bottom, or
interleaved in context under each point you're replying to, further
replies and their context would have been far clearer for others reading
and replying.)
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if
under development userspace HEAD code. Or just do what I
did and browse around a bit until you figure out which of the listed repos
you're actually after. =:^)
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program,
le and simply hasn't made it into a
stable release yet, that's understandable, tho having it specifically
stated, thus making waiting for it to hit stable an option, would be
nice. =:^)
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a mas
hile
stabilizing, isn't yet full stable and mature yet, even if it means a bit
more hands-on administration than would simply shoving everything in the
same basket and hoping the bottom doesn't drop out of it.
Tho that might be just me...
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No H
balance to full-width stripes anything that's not yet
full width, thereby evening out your usage.
A full balance /should/ do it as well, I believe, but with raid56 support
still not yet at the maturity level of btrfs in general, it's likely your
version is old and buggy in that rega
ause you can't follow it or because it simply
doesn't work in your case, you may be out of luck and will need to use
your backups even if they aren't current, unless one of the devs takes an
interest and you can build and run various debugging patches to trace
down the problem furth
useful, tho
I'm snipping them here.
One more tip. Btrfs quotas are known to have scaling issues as well. If
you're using them, they'll exacerbate the problem. And while I'm not
sure about current 4.4 status, thru 4.3 at least, they were buggy and not
reliable anyway.
e applied
there.
It's likely someone else tracking that bug and patch closer than I am (my
use-case doesn't involve snapshotting or subvolumes) will be along
shortly with further details and likely a link to the patch, but
meanwhile, yes, I think that's the bug that has already
Stefan Priebe posted on Sat, 13 Feb 2016 07:51:03 +0100 as excerpted:
> while running 4.4 i got the following enospc error today:
I don't see the usual btrfs fi sh and btrfs fi df
output included, that would show exactly what btrfs thought the
free-space situation was.
--
Dunca
#x27;re looking for is btrfs send -c. You're
still sending a subvolume, but the -c says to consider the supplied clone-
src parameter for just that, cloned, aka shared, sources, and unlike
-p parent, multiple such -c cloned-src options are allowed, so...
--
Duncan - List replies preferred.
e performance efficiency of separate data/metadata
on files of any significant size, where the proportional space wastage of
sub-block tails will be far smaller.)
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the p
at once if it's an even number of devices with space
left, all but one if it's an odd number with space left, since both
copies can't be on the same device, which means that odd device can't be
used for that allocation round, tho it will be for the next, and a
different devi
rious issues over some time.
Of course these days I use multi-device btrfs directly, no mdraid, and a
multi-device btrfs root unfortunately does seem to require an initr*, but
its other advantages outweigh the additional complexity of having to use
an initr*, so...
--
Duncan - List replies pr
it doesn´t need to recreate
> the filesystem.
>
> I wonder what happened to the VFS hot data tracking stuff patchset
> floating around here quite some time ago.
AFAIK it's still around, and very possibly in-use by some major user. I
believe it's still on the btrfs roadmap a
add one device at a time, you may come to a point where
there's no longer unallocated space on older devices, only on new
devices, and there's not at least four of them, so btrfs will be unable
to allocate additional raid6 chunks, and the space on the odd new devices
will be unusable
16 (the LTS previous to 3.18 was 3.14, which is definitely
too far back to be considered reasonable to still be running btrfs on,
list-perspective anyway), I believe the best recommendation for your
users as well, would be to either run a newer kernel if they're
comfortable with that, o
ted, and again, preferably
newer than that, 4.1 series or newer, up to the current 4.4, as current
userspace can normally be used with older kernels without issue except
for mkfs.btrfs, where you'll want to specify options to be compatible
with older kernels that didn't have code for newer on
are, either. The errors
bitmask is obviously targeted at devs who can read the code and see what
each bit means, and to my knowledge there's no table posted on the wiki
or wherever for non-devs to look it up.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree pro
d get that patch
thru the approval process and into kernel mainline. In that case there's
three options, and I dearly wish someone with the necessary kernel level
coder qualification would take that third option, making initr*less multi-
device btrfs / a viable option for the rest of u
/real/ bugs being
fixed every release. Thus, the general recommendation, on-list at least,
is to pick one or the other, and if you pick old and stale^h^hble, forget
about btrfs for the time being. Again, what your distro may support and
whether you choose to use that support is between you an
Sree Harsha Totakura posted on Mon, 04 Jan 2016 12:01:58 +0100 as
excerpted:
> On 12/30/2015 07:26 PM, Duncan wrote:
>> David Sterba posted on Wed, 30 Dec 2015 18:39:49 +0100 as excerpted:
>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 01:00:34AM +0100, Sree Harsha Totakura wrote:
>&g
Christoph Anton Mitterer posted on Mon, 04 Jan 2016 01:05:02 +0100 as
excerpted:
> On Sun, 2016-01-03 at 15:00 +0000, Duncan wrote:
>> But now that I think about it, balance does read the chunk in ordered
>> to rewrite its contents, and that read, like all reads, should normally
Rasmus Abrahamsen posted on Fri, 01 Jan 2016 21:20:13 +0100 as excerpted:
> I accidentically sent my messages directly to Duncan, I am copying them
> in here.
>
> Hello Duncan,
>
> Thank you for the amazing response. Wow, you are awesome.
Just a note to mention that real li
Christoph Anton Mitterer posted on Sat, 02 Jan 2016 06:12:46 +0100 as
excerpted:
> On Fri, 2015-12-25 at 08:06 +0000, Duncan wrote:
>> I wasn't personally sure if 4.1 itself was affected or not, but the
>> wiki says don't use 4.1.1 as it's broken with this bug, with
post, but if you say you
didn't... then it's all down to duplication and finding why it's suddenly
reverting to single mode on non-degraded mounts, which indeed /is/ a bug.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master
needed. While you mentioned below this part in your reply that you had
tried degraded,ro, that wasn't in your original post, so we wanted the
mount options you had actually tried, to see if you had tried degraded,ro,
or not.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Eve
he operational line, so there's no
chance of typoing something different than the confirmed version.
[2] Dual raid1 working and backup copies on a pair of partitioned
devices: My setup is actually rather somewhat more complex than that,
but the details are not apropos to this discussion.
--
Christoph Anton Mitterer posted on Sat, 02 Jan 2016 05:32:21 +0100 as
excerpted:
> On Fri, 2016-01-01 at 08:13 +0000, Duncan wrote:
>> you can also try a read-only scrub
> OT: I just wondered, would a balance include everything a scrub includes
> (i.e. read+verify all data and re
Doesn't solve your transaction aborted situation, but should provide a
bit more information on those specific subvols/subdirs and why snapper or
systemd is trying to create them.
---
[1] Read-only mounte /: I keep my / mounted read-only by default, only
mounting it writable when I want to up
I shouldn't have to do that to
> refresh Btrfs's state anytime I disconnect and connect devices just to
> make sure it doesn't sabotage the devices by surreptitiously adding
> single chunks to one of the drives!
Based on the evidence, I'd guess that you actually m
till be way more posts about it if so, but
confirmation's always good), nothing to do but wait for a fix, while if
not, and you still have your problem, then it's a different issue and the
devs will need to work with you on a fix specific to your problem.
--
Duncan - List replies
that are rare or don't happen at all on
native-created btrfs, and it's often balance that exposes these
problems. If you created with mkfs.btrfs, at least we don't have to
worry about the whole set of conversion-related problems.
Meanwhile, depending on the problem, a reboot will l
change thrown in at the normal receive side before the send,
I'd actually have been surprised if it /didn't/ work as you outlined. =:^)
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master
Chris Murphy posted on Thu, 31 Dec 2015 18:22:09 -0700 as excerpted:
> On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Alexander Duscheleit
> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I had a power fail today at my home server and after the reboot the
>> btrfs RAID1 won't come back up.
>>
>> When trying to mount one of the 2 disk
alf was typical, so it's likely my
scrubs were simply done before whatever the problem was could trigger.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
--
To unsubs
IOW, you have to choose between btrfs raid1 with data integrity repair on
top, with only two mdraid0's underneath, or btrfs raid0 with only data
integrity detection, not repair, on top, and a bunch of mdraid1 that
don't have data integrity at all, underneath.
--
Duncan - List replies
ou could
potentially enable them on 4.4 as an LTS kernel, as well as 4.6. But
that of course is assuming there's no known or new quota issues in 4.4 or
4.5, and we don't know that yet, so it could be well beyond 4.6 before
they're actually stable enough to depend on.
--
Dunca
t as far away from it as you do the
uninsulated live service mains coming into your building... on the SUPPLY
side of the voltage stepdown transformer! And for those that don't do
that, well, there's Darwin awards.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every non
t in case of a crash during
> reshaping, these files are (likely) garbage then right?
> Not particularly desirable...
For something like that, it'd pretty much /have/ to be done as COW, at
least at the chunk level, tho the address from the outside may stay the
same. That's w
Christoph Anton Mitterer posted on Wed, 30 Dec 2015 20:28:00 +0100 as
excerpted:
> On Wed, 2015-12-30 at 18:26 +0000, Duncan wrote:
>> That should work. Cat the files to /dev/null and check dmesg. For
>> single mode it should check the only copy. For raid1/10 or dup,
>&g
PID. Errors will show up in dmesg, as well as cat's STDERR.
Pretty clever thinking there. =:^)
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
--
To unsubscribe from
Duncan's usual "stable or not" talk
> (@Duncan, I think by now, you should have made it into some verse or
> ballad form... :D for general pleasure ;) )
=:^)
The devs did remove most of the experimental warnings some versions ago.
I guess they missed that one. The "heavy
o, you could run
current btrfs release userspace and release or rc kernels, and simply be
prepared to build a live-git version or possibly revert to an older
version, if you run into a bug where it's necessary.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program h
repair it fixes certain bad fields in them.
What you want to actually recover bad superblocks from good copies is
btrfs rescue super-recover.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master.&q
retching... I remember when the memory in my machine first
surpassed the size of the entire hard drive I had in my first 486sx25, 4
MiB RAM, 130 MB hard drive... and I counted myself lucky just to get a
486 instead of a 386... Yes, there's kids messing up my lawn too; I
shout and shake my
Duncan posted on Mon, 28 Dec 2015 10:34:49 + as excerpted:
>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 09:20:09 + (UTC)
>> Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Firefox is currently giving me OCSP errors for the wiki.
Whatever the problem was, it seems to be fixed, now
Roman Mamedov posted on Mon, 28 Dec 2015 14:29:43 +0500 as excerpted:
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 09:20:09 + (UTC)
> Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Firefox is currently giving me OCSP errors for the wiki. Links has no
>> problem, presumably because it d
Firefox is currently giving me OCSP errors for the wiki. Links has no
problem, presumably because it doesn't validate the cert or ignores OCSP
timeouts, but lynx is throwing errors as well, so it's not just firefox.
Others? What's up?
--
Duncan - List replies preferred.
Hugo Mills posted on Mon, 28 Dec 2015 01:58:07 + as excerpted:
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 01:50:09AM +0100, Christoph Anton Mitterer
> wrote:
>> On Sun, 2015-12-27 at 07:09 +, Duncan wrote:
>> > raid1 mode
>> I wonder when that reaches my pain threshold... a
Christoph Anton Mitterer posted on Mon, 28 Dec 2015 04:03:05 +0100 as
excerpted:
> On Mon, 2015-12-28 at 02:51 +0000, Duncan wrote:
>> 1) Btrfs very specifically and deliberately uses *lowercase* raidN in
>> part to make that distinction, as the btrfs variants are chunk- level
&
ecent version of btrfs-progs, however, as btrfs restore has
notably improved over time, with the last fix to it in 4.2.3, an off-by-
one fix to the symlink restoration code added in 4.0.1, and 4.0 added
metadata (time/mode/uid/gid) restoration, where before that files were
restored with the owners
Waxhead posted on Mon, 28 Dec 2015 03:04:33 +0100 as excerpted:
> Duncan wrote:
>> Waxhead posted on Mon, 28 Dec 2015 00:06:46 +0100 as excerpted:
>>
>>> btrfs scrub status /mnt
>>> scrub status for 2832346e-0720-499f-8239-355534e5721b
>>>
quote of the manpage. So how is it not the text I quoted?
It's in quotation marks attributed with "the manpage specifically says",
my own rewording is marked as the manpage _"suggests"_ (with the choice
of "suggests" as opposed to "says" and quote marks
Christoph Anton Mitterer posted on Mon, 28 Dec 2015 02:21:28 +0100 as
excerpted:
> On Sun, 2015-12-27 at 07:22 +0000, Duncan wrote:
>> I'd call that NOTABUG. As the btrfs-scrub manpage suggests:
>>
>> * When you point scrub at a mountpoint, it scrubs all devices co
Christoph Anton Mitterer posted on Mon, 28 Dec 2015 01:50:09 +0100 as
excerpted:
> On Sun, 2015-12-27 at 07:09 +0000, Duncan wrote:
>> raid1 mode
> I wonder when that reaches my pain threshold... and I submit a patch
> that renames it "notreallyraid1" in all places ;-)
ble, and indeed,
that'd be the biggest reason to run N-way-mirroring with N>2 in the first
place.
But regardless, agreed with everyone, simply crashing must be seen as a
bug. If it's not going to scrub correctly, it should exit normally but
with an error status and printout to STDERR,
tart) seems to be in POSIX time.
Is it possible you were or are running the scrub from, for instance, a
rescue image that might not set the system time correctly and that falls
back to, say, the date the rescue image was created, if it can't get
network connectivity or some such?
--
Duncan - Li
iple USB-attached devices can get
out of sync with each other, breaking the filesystem.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
--
To unsubscribe from this list:
ltiple devices on the
commandline is even supported. However, these sorts of commands only
tend to be run very deliberately and under very specific circumstances,
and thus are unlikely to be run when one is working with multiple images
of a device that shouldn't be combined into the same
-*/* are symlinks to various block-device nodes, it
follows that if you point scrub at them, only the device pointed at is
scrubbed, exactly as one might expect based on the manpage.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if
cuse too. But by contrast
it can be noted that I posted right away when I noticed the mkfs.btrfs
manpage totally lost raid1 mode with one update, because I use it,
regardless of what else I was doing. I guess that must have hit my pain
threshold...
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML
r it part of the same filesystem, thus potentially causing
corruption if it's a snapshot or something that's not actually supposed
to be part of the (current) filesystem.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you
at device, there were a *LOT* more spare sectors than I had
imagined there'd be. At 85% I had replaced several MiB worth, at half a
KiB per sector, 2000 sectors per MiB, and it looked to have 100 to
perhaps 128 MiB or so of spare sectors, on a 238 GiB ssd. I'd have
guessed perhaps 8-
on
patch backlog, so it's possible it's already in the queue.
Thanks for the report, particularly because as I said, others are likely
to be upgrading ATM as well due to the status changes when 4.4 releases.
I'm sure the devs will be looking at it.
--
Duncan - List replies pref
covici posted on Fri, 25 Dec 2015 00:28:09 -0500 as excerpted:
> Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> How long have you had the filesystem? Was it likely created with the
>> mkfs.btrfs from btrfs-progs v4.1.1 (July, 2015) as I suspect? If so,
>> you have a p
jwalmer posted on Thu, 24 Dec 2015 08:56:15 -0500 as excerpted:
> Thanks for the speedy replies! Earlier Duncan said, "there's still no
> user-side multi-device filesystem health monitoring application." I'm
> mostly worried about device errors/failu
emented, and this one
simply hasn't been a priority for existing developers, given the other
features they've found to be more pressing. But it may indeed eventually
come, five or ten years out, sooner if a suitable developer with suitable
interest and social compatibility with existing de
you didn't create the filesystem
with the buggy mkfs.btrfs from v4.1.1, there's likely some other problem
to root out, but I'm guessing you did, and thus have the bad filesystem
the patched btrfs check is designed to report, and that report is indeed
valid.)
--
Duncan - Li
t smaller than I'd
like, so next time I repartition, I'll probably make them 384 MiB each
instead of 256 MiB, taking the space from my /var/log partition, which is
512 MiB raid1 but never even half used unless I have a runaway logger
event, so shrinking it to 384 MiB as well, to give t
n a server where the
user and/or admin is unlikely to be directly observing things and thus
know when things go wrong due to the observed change in behavior,
regardless of formal monitoring or the lack thereof, as would likely be
the case on a desktop/workstation.
--
Duncan - List replies prefer
ple btrfs raid1 on two partitions on the
same physical device) would have on spinning rust.
I thought I'd throw those points out, in case you had failed to
notice bcache as an option and would prefer it as better tested,
once you knew about it, and in case the partitioned ssd idea
does
a larger scope than the limited one-future-option scope
that I had originally intended.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
--
To unsubscribe from this list
fs N-way-mirroring will provide, in the longer term once
btrfs gets that feature and it stabilizes to usability, is the ability to
actually have three cabinets, and sustain the loss of two, or four
cabinets, and sustain the loss of three, etc.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No
any help you can be in editing the wiki is highly
appreciated, and you don't have to worry too much about any mistakes you
inadvertently make, as others will be along to fix them. =:^)
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
nearest comparable
solution isn't quite as direct, a btrfs raid1/5/10 (or btrfs raid6 for
double set loss), on top of mdraidN.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master.
all effect is very
> similar to the effect you'd have from writing to the file without
> autodefrag.
>
> And I am now better informed than I was before. :)
And now so are we. Thanks, Hugo.
I /knew/ there had to be a good explanation, as what you were saying just
didn't
s on
one of the archives, then post back with any further questions you have.
Here's a nice simple link to either bookmark or memorize. =:^)
https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use th
7;t
match.
(D should in practice be "good enough" if one was only mounted writable a
very short time, while the other was written to over a rather longer
period, such that it almost certainly had far more intervening commits
and thus generations than the other.)
--
Duncan - List
the previous mount-blocker experience I was a
rather nervous when I saw it enabled without me initially enabling it,
but space_cache has basically "just worked" for me since then, tho I've
had a few other mount-blocking bugs.)
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
&q
likely trigger it, if other files have been written in
parallel or in the mean time.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send
VM images over to a fresh btrfs,
mounted with autodefrag from the get-go, so they start unfragmented and
you don't have that huge initial hit to take before things calm down.
(That's what I've done with all my btrfs here, mounted with autodefrag
from the very first mount. Tho my us
and understanding of the subject. (I had tried to make
sense of filefrag -v and couldn't, here. After reading your relay of
Ted's reply, the output makes /much/ better sense to me! =:^)
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
n the dir and take care to either create new files (as you
did) or copy/move them into place without reflinking, so they're actually
created before they have any content, so the nocow inherited from the dir
will actually take effect.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"
Christoph Anton Mitterer posted on Wed, 16 Dec 2015 22:59:01 +0100 as
excerpted:
>> It's certainly in quite a few on-list posts over the years
> okay,.. in other words: no ;-)
> scatter over the years list posts don't count as documentation :P
=:^)
--
Duncan - List r
tents or not, as I said this is my first time trying
-v, and I didn't bother going that far with it.)
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
--
To unsubscribe
l snapshots respectively other reflinks
> would simply also change to being compressed,
You're correct. I "obviously didn't thing thru" that the whole way,
myself. =:^(
But meanwhile, we don't have snapshot-aware-defrag, and in that case, the
implication... and h
that great.
But based on real reports posting before and after numbers from filefrag
(on uncompressed btrfs), we do have cases where defrag can't find 256 KiB
free-space blocks and thus can actually fragment a file worse than it was
before, so free-space fragmentation is indeed a very real pr
, yet another successor filesystem may
indeed be in the early stages of development, say at the 20/80 point, 20%
of required effort invested, possibly 80% of the features done, but not
stabilized.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a l
Christoph Anton Mitterer posted on Wed, 16 Dec 2015 22:59:01 +0100 as
excerpted:
> On Wed, 2015-12-09 at 16:36 +0000, Duncan wrote:
>> But... as I've pointed out in other replies, in many cases including
>> this specific one (bittorrent), applications have already had to
ey just do it... and
sometimes they suffer the consequences when they do... and sometimes then
try to blame others for it.That's the way of the world; not
something we're going to change.
Even the required actually spelled out "yes" confirmation, not just "y"
e, as we
know it, so I'm far from alone, there.
But, despite the debatable human-readability, it's a h*** of a lot more
readable than UUIDs, and works very well indeed in LABEL= usage in fstab,
being a h*** of a lot easier to work with there than UUIDs! =:^)
--
Duncan - List replies prefe
Christoph Anton Mitterer posted on Wed, 16 Dec 2015 12:45:00 +0100 as
excerpted:
> On Wed, 2015-12-16 at 11:10 +0000, Duncan wrote:
>> And noload doesn't have the namespace collision problem norecovery does
>> on btrfs, so I'd strongly suggest using it, at least as an al
601 - 700 of 1873 matches
Mail list logo
