in is destroyed ;)
So should I go for btrfs?
NB: I am running happily a RAID5 btrfs with 4x2TB disks in it, but you'll just
know the value of the filesystem when something goes wrong. Yes I know RAID5/6
is not a backup ;)
Cheers,
Sjoerd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubs
the fs via uuid while Sjoerd mounted subvolumes. From what I understand
> > (not much) it's either an subvolume issue or Fedora must then somehow
> > perform a device scan before handling fstab.
>
> I'm guessing fedora has btrfs device scan in its initr*.
I think so too, si
30, 2015 9:04:39 PM Leonidas Spyropoulos <artafi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hello,
On 30/09/15, Sjoerd wrote:
Hi All,
A RAID5 setup on raw devices doesn't want to automount on boot.
[..]
Post your /etc/fstab file please.
Thanks
--
Sent using mutt
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send th
On Saturday 26 September 2015 01:43:32 Duncan wrote:
> Sjoerd posted on Fri, 25 Sep 2015 15:40:39 +0200 as excerpted:
> > Is it better to use raw devices for a RAID setup or make one partition
> > on the drive and then create your RAID from there?
> > Right now if have on
On Friday 25 September 2015 13:51:34 Hugo Mills wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 03:36:18PM +0200, Sjoerd wrote:
> > Thanks all for the feedback. Still doubting though to go for 4.2.1 or not.
> > Main reason is that I am currently running 4.1.7 on my laptop which seems
> >
switching back
to 4.1.7 resolved those, so I am a bit holding back to try the 4.2.1 version
;)
Anyway I'll see and can always revert back if I don't like it ;)
Cheers,
Sjoerd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message
be stable these days?), but
wondering to deal with raw drives or partitions (4 at the moment).
In the wiki they're referring to raw devices in the examples, but that could
be outdated?
Cheers,
Sjoerd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
t
;) ), but the mainline kernel
seems to be in more active development?
Cheers,
Sjoerd
--
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
metadata, while I
expected it to be DUP and stumbled on this wiki article. Can't find a reason
for why a SSD would be different?
Cheers,
Sjoerd
--
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
On Friday 07 August 2015 11:40:24 Mike Fleetwood wrote:
On 7 August 2015 at 10:47, Sjoerd sjo...@sjomar.eu wrote:
While we're at it: any idea why the default for SSD's is single for meta
data as described on the wiki?
(https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php
On Tuesday 23 June 2015 16:45:01 David Sterba wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 11:03:47AM +0200, Sjoerd wrote:
On Monday 22 June 2015 17:00:23 David Sterba wrote:
btrfs-progs 4.1 have been released (in time with kernel 4.1). Unusual
load
of changes.
Would it be beneficial to update
won't
support it (yet) :(
Cheers,
Sjoerd
--
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
FS bytes used 192.00KiB
devid1 size 2.90GiB used 333.12MiB path /dev/sdf
btrfs-progs v4.0.1-2-ge8ceb61
---
Anand
On 06/13/2015 03:20 PM, Sjoerd wrote: Hi,
I've a btrfs partition with label 'MULTIMEDIA' (all capitals) and
mounted it
on /data/Multimedia
results for this
particular mountpoint, while for others I did ;)
Cheers,
Sjoerd
--
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
14 matches
Mail list logo
