AFAIK, ZFS compats lying disks by rolling back to the latest mountable
uber block (i.e. the latest tree that was completely and successfully
written to disk), does btrfs do something similar today ?
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 7:06 PM, Mitch Harder
mitch.har...@sabayonlinux.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug
For example:
No device-yanking tests were done.
No power-cord yanking tests were done.
No device cables were yanked, shaken, or plugged/unplugged in rapid
succession.
No dd the raw device underneath the filesystem while doing file
I/O tests were done.
No recovery tests were done.
In other words, btrfs-show could tell you that 19GB has been used, but
df could say that 0 bytes are in use in the FS.
Thanks Chris for the clarification. So despite saying 19G are used, I
shouldn't be worried about running out of disk space, since these are
just pre-allocated areas. Perhaps
Hi everyone,
I'm running kernel 2.6.32-0.65.rc8.git5.fc13.x86_64. And I ran
btrfs-vol -b, however for 10G of data I still have 9G of metadata!
How do I fix this ?
[r...@matrix ~]# btrfs-vol -b /
ioctl returns 0
You have mail in /var/spool/mail/root
[r...@matrix ~]# btrfs-show
failed to read
left on device
61+0 records in
60+0 records out
62914560 bytes (63 MB) copied, 0.40297 s, 156 MB/s
You have mail in /var/spool/mail/root
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:41 PM, Ahmed Kamal
email.ahmedka...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi folks,
I am running a Fedora-12 system (2.6.31.5-127.fc12.x86_64
More info
[r...@matrix ~]# btrfs-show
failed to read /dev/sr0
Label: none uuid: 06b0d069-b1cb-48c4-b26f-c5088a2360d2
Total devices 1 FS bytes used 9.99GB
devid1 size 25.72GB used 25.72GB path /dev/dm-1
Btrfs Btrfs v0.19
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:47 PM, Ahmed Kamal
But now Oracle can re-license Solaris and merge ZFS with btrfs.
Just kidding, I don't think it would be technically feasible.
May I suggest the name ZbtrFS :)
Sorry couldn't resist. On a more serious note though, is there any
technical benefits that justify continuing to push money in btrfs
at 4:40 PM, Ahmed Kamal
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I definitely hope btrfs has this per-object copies property too.
However, simply replicating the whole contents of a directory, wastes
too much disk space, as opposed to RS codes
Although adding redundancy mechanism will help increasing
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Chris Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 2008-08-03 at 02:12 +0300, Ahmed Kamal wrote:
Hi guys,
I was playing on vmware with btrfs on complete disks /dev/sd{b,c,d,e}.
Next I decided to use partitions, so I created /dev/sd{b,c,d,e}1 and
used those, worked fine
Hi guys,
I was playing on vmware with btrfs on complete disks /dev/sd{b,c,d,e}.
Next I decided to use partitions, so I created /dev/sd{b,c,d,e}1 and
used those, worked fine! Afterward, I mistakenly re-ran an old command
on the full disk ( mount -t btrfs -o subvol=. /dev/sdb /mnt/ ) notice
this is
Is this not a valid patch/fix ? Who do I have to bug to get this merged :)
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 7:44 PM, Ahmed Kamal
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's probably a more proper patch
# HG changeset patch
# Signed-Off-By: Ahmed Kamal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
# Date 1216410189 -10800
# Node ID
Hi,
Since btrfs is someday going to be the default FS for Linux, and will
be on so many single disk PCs and laptops, I was thinking it should be
a good idea to insert some redundancy in single disk deployments. Of
course it can help with disk failures, since it's obviously a single
disk, but it
RS-based error correction for themselves. If we're unlucky in our choice
of error correction, it might even be possible to end up in a situation
where the only errors we'd _see_ are the ones which were uncorrectable.
but since at the FS level, the redundancy would be at a different
place,
Thanks man, I got myself a wiki account, and get btrfs up and running
in a VM. Will start planning for the test suite
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Miguel Sousa Filipe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi there,
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Ahmed Kamal
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, cool
[EMAIL PROTECTED] progs-unstable]# btrfsctl -A /dev/sdb
ioctl returns 0
[EMAIL PROTECTED] progs-unstable]# btrfsctl -A /dev/sdc
ioctl returns 0
/dev/sdb has a btrfs, while /dev/sdc is blank. What's that output
supposed to mean ? Is it a bug ?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
Hi Team,
I have been following the btrfs project since Chris announced it last
year. I am happy to see v1.0 is planned in Q4. This is awesome, we can
finally get something like ZFS on Linux. The project pace is nothing
short of amazing. Thank you :)
I notice the plans contain QA suite.
I would
16 matches
Mail list logo
