Just curious, would the observed behavior change if one modifies head in any
way between snap and umount?
Regards,
Andrey
>
> 02.12.2011 13:28 пользователь "Jan Schmidt"
> написал:
>
>
> While hunting another bug, I got distracted by btrfsck error output,
> which is reproducible as simple as cre
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Hugo Mills wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 06:24:41PM +0200, Arne Jansen wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> If no one is already working on it, I'd like to take the Quota lock and
>> see how far I come.
>> Let me sketch out in short what I'm planning to do:
>>
>> - Quota will be
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-03-25 at 14:13 +0300, Andrey Kuzmin wrote:
>> Turning try_lock into indefinitely spinning one breaks its semantics,
>> so deadlock is to be expected. But what's wrong in this scenario if
>> try_lock sp
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 6:39 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 10:41:51AM +0100, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Adaptive owner spinning used to be applied only to mutex_lock(). This
>> patch applies it also to mutex_trylock().
>>
>> btrfs has developed custom locking to avoid excessive con
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:28 PM, Arne Jansen wrote:
> On 23.03.2011 20:26, Andrey Kuzmin wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Arne Jansen wrote:
>>>
>>> While looking into the performance of scrub I noticed that a significant
>>> amount of time
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 6:48 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
>>
>> Currently, mutex_trylock() doesn't use adaptive spinning. It tries
>> just once. I got curious whether using adaptive spinning on
>> mutex_trylock() would be beneficial and it seems
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Arne Jansen wrote:
> While looking into the performance of scrub I noticed that a significant
> amount of time is being used for loading the extent tree and the csum
> tree. While this is no surprise I did some prototyping on how to improve
> on it.
> The main idea
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 3:52 AM, Chris Mason wrote:
> Excerpts from Andrey Kuzmin's message of 2011-03-17 15:12:32 -0400:
>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 9:18 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> > Currently if we have corrupted items things will blow up in spectacular
>> > ways.
>> > So as we read in blocks an
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 9:18 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> Currently if we have corrupted items things will blow up in spectacular ways.
> So as we read in blocks and they are leaves, check the entire leaf to make
> sure
> all of the items are correct and point to valid parts in the leaf for the item
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
> Excerpts from Jan Schmidt's message of 2011-03-17 13:37:54 -0400:
>> On 03/17/2011 06:09 PM, Andrey Kuzmin wrote:
>> > On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Jan Schmidt > > <mailto:list.bt...@jan-o-sch.net>>
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
> Excerpts from Nirbheek Chauhan's message of 2010-12-06 07:41:16 -0500:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'd like to know if there has been any discussion about adding a new
>> feature to write (add) data at an offset, but without overwriting
>> existing data, or
In my opinion, the point is not the default snapshot creation mode but
rather default usage, equals user's expectation.
On 11/30/10, Li Zefan wrote:
> C Anthony Risinger wrote:
>> On Nov 29, 2010, at 3:48 PM, Andrey Kuzmin
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure
10 at 12:43 AM, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Andrey Kuzmin
> wrote:
>> This may sound excessive as any new concept introduction that late in
>> development, but readonly/writable snapshots could be further
>> differentiated by naming the latter
This may sound excessive as any new concept introduction that late in
development, but readonly/writable snapshots could be further
differentiated by naming the latter clones. This way end-user would
naturally perceive snapsot as read-only PIT fs image, while clone
would naturally refer to (writabl
Did I get you right in that btrfs does not support snapshots of an
arbitrary directory?
Regards,
Andrey
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 5:19 AM, TARUISI Hiroaki
wrote:
> In btrfs, snapshot is a clone of subvolume, not arbitrary
> directory.
> You specified '/root' directory and it is not subvolume,
>
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:05 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 02:25:50PM -0800, Sage Weil wrote:
>> When you create a new snap or subvol, first a new ROOT_ITEM is created
>> while everything commits, and then the referring directory entry is set up
>> (with a correspond ROOT_BACKREF
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 6:25 PM, jim owens wrote:
>
> So we know the "raw free blocks", but can not guarantee
> "how many raw blocks per new user write-block" will be
> consumed because we do not know what topology will be
> in effect for a new write.
>
> We could cheat and use "worst-case topolo
Just for clarity, getdents is exactly the other interface options
discussed couple of weeks back (use virtual directories & standard
file-system API).
Regards,
Andrey
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 11:58 AM, TARUISI Hiroaki
wrote:
> Thank you for your advice.
>
> I'm aware of redundant search, but I
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> We can race with the unmount of an fs and the stopping of a kthread where we
> will free the block group before we're done using it. The reason for this is
> because we do not hold a reference on the block group while its caching, since
> the
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 8:19 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009, Chris Mason wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 02:13:10PM -0800, Sage Weil wrote:
>> > On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, Andrey Kuzmin wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 1
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 02:13:10PM -0800, Sage Weil wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, Andrey Kuzmin wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
>> > > Hi all,
>> > >
>&
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This is an alternative approach to atomic user transactions for btrfs.
> The old start/end ioctls suffer from some basic limitations, namely
>
> - We can't properly reserve space ahead of time to avoid ENOSPC part
> way through the
/mountroot/.{snapshots,subvolumes} seems logical, works fine with
usual command-line/programmatic interfaces.
Regards,
Andrey
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 12:57 AM, David Nicol wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 12:52 AM, TARUISI Hiroaki
> wrote:
>> I'm trying to make this snapshots/subvolumes listin
comes at the cost of garbage collection).
Regards,
Andrey
>
> But the benefits are obvious: instant snapshots and very low space
> consumption (in case you don't delete lots of your 'live' data).
>
> On 8/5/09, Andrey Kuzmin wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
>
> On 4. aug.. 2009, at 20.33, Chris Mason wrote:
>
>>> It's strange that such a small thing should be delayed so much. If
>>> snapshot removal was working, I'm quite sure we might get more users
>>> and thereby more stable code faster.
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 10:06 PM, Jan-Frode Myklebust wrote:
>> Looking at the website content, it also revealed that VMware will have a
>> similiar feature for their workhorse ,,esx server'' in the upcoming
>> release, however my point still stands. Ship out a service pack for
>> windows and you 1
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> Thomas Glanzmann wrote:
>
> I think that Chris already mentioned that you can (for virt OS images) also
> imagine using copy on write snapshots (of something that is mostly read-only
> like the OS system partitions). Make 50 copy-on-write snaps
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 07:22 +0200, Thomas Glanzmann wrote:
>> Hello Chris,
>>
>> > There is a btrfs ioctl to clone individual files, and this could be used
>> > to implement an online dedup. But, since it is happening from userland,
>> > you c
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Andrey Kuzmin
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Ahmed Kamal
>> wrote:
>>>> But now Oracle can re-license Solaris and merge ZFS with btrfs.
>>>&g
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Ahmed Kamal
wrote:
>> 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
>
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 10:32 PM, Sébastien Wacquiez wrote:
> Andrey Kuzmin a écrit :
>>
>> zvol (interface) does not just 'export raw device' but rather
>> implements volume abstraction and integrates volume management into
>> file-system.
>>
>
zvol (interface) does not just 'export raw device' but rather
implements volume abstraction and integrates volume management into
file-system.
Regards,
Andrey
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Sébastien Wacquiez wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A nice feature is ZFS is the "ZVOL" layer, that permit you to e
Since both NULL ptr and IS_ERR(ptr) are treated as error, why not
redefine IS_ERR to handle both, simplifying caller's life?
Regards,
Andrey
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> There are a couple functions which return ERR_PTR as well as NULL. The
> caller needs to handle b
33 matches
Mail list logo
