On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 09:01:36AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> Mark Fasheh wrote on 2015/11/03 11:26 -0800:
> >On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 09:34:24AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>Stefan Priebe wrote on 2015/11/01 21:49 +0100:
> >>>Hi,
> >>>
> >>>this one:
On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 09:02:13AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> >The same exact code ran in either case before and after your patches, so my
> >guess is that the issue is actually inside the qgroup code that shouldn't
> >have been run. I wonder if we even just filled up his memory but never
>
Mark Fasheh wrote on 2015/11/05 11:23 -0800:
On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 09:01:36AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Mark Fasheh wrote on 2015/11/03 11:26 -0800:
On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 09:34:24AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Stefan Priebe wrote on 2015/11/01 21:49 +0100:
Hi,
this one:
Mark Fasheh wrote on 2015/11/05 19:15 -0800:
On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 09:02:13AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
The same exact code ran in either case before and after your patches, so my
guess is that the issue is actually inside the qgroup code that shouldn't
have been run. I wonder if we even just
On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 09:34:24AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> Stefan Priebe wrote on 2015/11/01 21:49 +0100:
> >Hi,
> >
> >this one: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg47377.html
> >
> >adds a regression to my test systems with very large disks (30tb and 50tb).
> >
> >btrfs balance
On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 06:46:06AM +0100, Stefan Priebe wrote:
> Am 02.11.2015 um 02:34 schrieb Qu Wenruo:
> >
> >
> >Stefan Priebe wrote on 2015/11/01 21:49 +0100:
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>this one: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg47377.html
> >>
> >>adds a regression to my test systems with
Am 03.11.2015 um 20:26 schrieb Mark Fasheh:
On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 09:34:24AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Stefan Priebe wrote on 2015/11/01 21:49 +0100:
Hi,
this one: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg47377.html
adds a regression to my test systems with very large disks (30tb and
Mark Fasheh wrote on 2015/11/03 11:26 -0800:
On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 09:34:24AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Stefan Priebe wrote on 2015/11/01 21:49 +0100:
Hi,
this one: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg47377.html
adds a regression to my test systems with very large disks (30tb and
On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 08:42:33PM +0100, Stefan Priebe wrote:
> Sorry don't know much about the btrfs internals.
>
> I just can reproduce this. Switching to a kernel with this patch and
> without. With it takes ages - without it's super fast. I prooved
> this several times by just rebooting to
On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 03:31:15PM -0800, Mark Fasheh wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 08:42:33PM +0100, Stefan Priebe wrote:
> > Sorry don't know much about the btrfs internals.
> >
> > I just can reproduce this. Switching to a kernel with this patch and
> > without. With it takes ages - without
Stefan Priebe wrote on 2015/11/01 21:49 +0100:
Hi,
this one: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg47377.html
adds a regression to my test systems with very large disks (30tb and 50tb).
btrfs balance is super slow afterwards while heavily making use of cp
--reflink=always on big files
Stefan Priebe posted on Sun, 01 Nov 2015 21:49:44 +0100 as excerpted:
> this one: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg47377.html
>
> adds a regression to my test systems with very large disks (30tb and
> 50tb).
>
> btrfs balance is super slow afterwards while heavily making use of cp
>
Hi,
this one: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg47377.html
adds a regression to my test systems with very large disks (30tb and 50tb).
btrfs balance is super slow afterwards while heavily making use of cp
--reflink=always on big files (200gb - 500gb).
Sorry didn't know how to
Am 02.11.2015 um 02:34 schrieb Qu Wenruo:
Stefan Priebe wrote on 2015/11/01 21:49 +0100:
Hi,
this one: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg47377.html
adds a regression to my test systems with very large disks (30tb and
50tb).
btrfs balance is super slow afterwards while heavily
14 matches
Mail list logo
