Will it be possible in the future to mount a [ multi-device] btrfs via
its volume name [ or UUID] as opposed to just using one of the device
names in the group?
Something like btrfs-mount 'myData' /mnt or btrfs-mount
'2f0c9c70-820f-4978-af5a-93bc9f7d89da' /mnt. I find using one of the
devices
Add an ioctl to dump btrfs btree_inode's existing pages. Userspace collects such
info and uses it to do metadata readahead.
we only account updated and referenced pages here. Say we collect metadata info
in one boot, do metadata readahead in next boot and we might collect metadata
again. The
Add metadata readahead ioctl.
Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li shaohua...@intel.com
---
fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 10 ++
fs/btrfs/ioctl.c | 23 +++
fs/btrfs/ioctl.h |7 +++
mm/readahead.c |1 +
4 files changed, 41 insertions(+)
Index:
Hi,
We have file readahead to do asyn file read, but has no metadata
readahead. For a list of files, their metadata is stored in fragmented
disk space and metadata read is a sync operation, which impacts the
efficiency of readahead much. The patches try to add meatadata readahead
for btrfs.
In
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 04:02:16PM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
Hi,
We have file readahead to do asyn file read, but has no metadata
readahead. For a list of files, their metadata is stored in fragmented
disk space and metadata read is a sync operation, which impacts the
efficiency of readahead
Hi, Chris
Could you review these patches for me? I have tested them and everything
works ok.
[PATCH 1/2] btrfs: restructure try_release_extent_buffer()
[PATCH 2/2] btrfs: fix oops when leafsize is greator than nodesize
[PATCH] btrfs-progs: fix wrong extent buffer size when reading tree block
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Aaron Straus aa...@edgestreamlp.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 3:58 PM, K. Richard Pixley r...@noir.com wrote:
On ubuntu-10.04, the standard package for btrfs-tools is 0.19-8. This
version apparently lacks the -D option to btrfsctl.
In this
Am Donnerstag 08 Juli 2010, 16:31:09 schrieb Chris Mason:
Neither Yan nor I have been able to reproduce this locally, but a few
people have now hit it. Johannes, are you available to try out a
debugging kernel to try and track this down?
-chris
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 04:27:23PM +0200,
Here's what I'm getting on ubuntu-10.04 with standard tools,
(/sbin/btrfsctl), and freshly built tools, (/usr/local/bin/btrfsctl).
Are we sure that the btrfs kernel module in this release is supporting
the right ioctls?
--rich
r...@diamonds pwd
/home/rich
r...@diamonds mount | grep /home
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 12:15 PM, K. Richard Pixley r...@noir.com wrote:
Here's what I'm getting on ubuntu-10.04 with standard tools,
(/sbin/btrfsctl), and freshly built tools, (/usr/local/bin/btrfsctl).
Are we sure that the btrfs kernel module in this release is supporting the
right ioctls?
Hi all,
I'm used to snapshots with LVM and I would like to compare them to btrfs.
The case I want to compare is the following:
At the moment a snapshot is created, no extra space is needed (maybe
some metadata overhead) and all data is shared between the original
and the snapshot.
In LVM,
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 11:27:39PM +0200, Mathijs Kwik wrote:
Hi all,
I'm used to snapshots with LVM and I would like to compare them to btrfs.
The case I want to compare is the following:
At the moment a snapshot is created, no extra space is needed (maybe
some metadata overhead) and all
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 05:25:23PM +0200, Johannes Hirte wrote:
Am Donnerstag 08 Juli 2010, 16:31:09 schrieb Chris Mason:
I'm not sure if btrfs is to blame for this error. After the errors I switched
to XFS on this system and got now this error:
ls -l .kde4/share/apps/akregator/data/
ls:
Hi, everyone
I found btrfs will hangup when we run the sync command on my
x86_64 box.
The reproduce steps is following:
# mkfs.btrfs -s 8192 -l 8192 -n 8192 /dev/sda1
# mount /dev/sda1 /mnt
# echo 1234567 /mnt/aaa
# sync
(btrfs hangs up)
It seems that the btrfs doesn't support the sectorsize
14 matches
Mail list logo
