On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 10:12:20PM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
> On 2 October 2013 13:52, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 10:13:25PM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
> >> On 1 October 2013 21:42, Aastha Mehta wrote:
> >> > On 1 October 2013 21:40, Aastha Mehta wrote:
> >> >> On 1 October
On 2 October 2013 13:52, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 10:13:25PM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
>> On 1 October 2013 21:42, Aastha Mehta wrote:
>> > On 1 October 2013 21:40, Aastha Mehta wrote:
>> >> On 1 October 2013 19:34, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> >>> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 11:07:20
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 10:13:25PM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
> On 1 October 2013 21:42, Aastha Mehta wrote:
> > On 1 October 2013 21:40, Aastha Mehta wrote:
> >> On 1 October 2013 19:34, Josef Bacik wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 11:07:20PM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
> On 30 Septembe
On 1 October 2013 21:42, Aastha Mehta wrote:
> On 1 October 2013 21:40, Aastha Mehta wrote:
>> On 1 October 2013 19:34, Josef Bacik wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 11:07:20PM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
On 30 September 2013 22:47, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 10:30:5
On 1 October 2013 21:40, Aastha Mehta wrote:
> On 1 October 2013 19:34, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 11:07:20PM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
>>> On 30 September 2013 22:47, Josef Bacik wrote:
>>> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 10:30:59PM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
>>> >> On 30 Septembe
On 1 October 2013 19:34, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 11:07:20PM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
>> On 30 September 2013 22:47, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 10:30:59PM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
>> >> On 30 September 2013 22:11, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> >> > On Mon, Se
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 11:07:20PM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
> On 30 September 2013 22:47, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 10:30:59PM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
> >> On 30 September 2013 22:11, Josef Bacik wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 09:32:54PM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 11:07:20PM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
> On 30 September 2013 22:47, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 10:30:59PM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
> >> On 30 September 2013 22:11, Josef Bacik wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 09:32:54PM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
On 30 September 2013 22:47, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 10:30:59PM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
>> On 30 September 2013 22:11, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 09:32:54PM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
>> >> On 29 September 2013 15:12, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> >> > On Sun,
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 10:30:59PM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
> On 30 September 2013 22:11, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 09:32:54PM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
> >> On 29 September 2013 15:12, Josef Bacik wrote:
> >> > On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 11:22:36AM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
On 30 September 2013 22:11, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 09:32:54PM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
>> On 29 September 2013 15:12, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> > On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 11:22:36AM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
>> >> Thank you very much for the reply. That clarifies a lot of thin
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 09:32:54PM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
> On 29 September 2013 15:12, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 11:22:36AM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
> >> Thank you very much for the reply. That clarifies a lot of things.
> >>
> >> I was trying a small test case that ope
On 29 September 2013 15:12, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 11:22:36AM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
>> Thank you very much for the reply. That clarifies a lot of things.
>>
>> I was trying a small test case that opens a file, writes a block of
>> data, calls fsync and then closes the fi
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 11:22:36AM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
> Thank you very much for the reply. That clarifies a lot of things.
>
> I was trying a small test case that opens a file, writes a block of
> data, calls fsync and then closes the file. If I understand correctly,
> fsync would return o
Thank you very much for the reply. That clarifies a lot of things.
I was trying a small test case that opens a file, writes a block of
data, calls fsync and then closes the file. If I understand correctly,
fsync would return only after all in-memory buffers have been
committed to disk. I have adde
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 01:35:15AM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have few questions regarding logging triggered by calling fsync in BTRFS:
>
> 1. If I understand correctly, fsync will call to log entire inode in
> the log tree. Does this mean that the data extents are also logged
> into
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 01:46:23AM +0200, Aastha Mehta wrote:
> I am using linux kernel 3.1.10-1.16, just to let you know.
Not that it invalidates the questions below, but that's a really
old kernel. You should update to something recent (3.11, or 3.12-rc2)
as soon as possible. There are major
I am using linux kernel 3.1.10-1.16, just to let you know.
Thanks
On 29 September 2013 01:35, Aastha Mehta wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have few questions regarding logging triggered by calling fsync in BTRFS:
>
> 1. If I understand correctly, fsync will call to log entire inode in
> the log tree. Does th
Hi,
I have few questions regarding logging triggered by calling fsync in BTRFS:
1. If I understand correctly, fsync will call to log entire inode in
the log tree. Does this mean that the data extents are also logged
into the log tree? Are they copied into the log tree, or just
referenced? Are the
19 matches
Mail list logo