On 08-05-2012 18:47, Hubert Kario wrote:
On Tuesday 08 of May 2012 04:45:51 cwillu wrote:
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 1:36 AM, Fajar A. Nugrahal...@fajar.net wrote:
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Clemens Eissererlinuxhi...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
I have a quite unreliable SSD here which develops
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 07.05.12:
mkfs.btrfs -m raid1 -d single should give you that.
What's the difference to
mkfs.btrfs -m raid1 -d raid0
- RAID-0 stripes each piece of data across all the disks.
- single puts data on one disk at a time.
[...]
In fact, this is
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 07.05.12:
[...]
With a file system like ext2/3/4 I can work with several directories
which are mounted together, but (as said before) one broken disk
doesn't disturb the others.
mkfs.btrfs -m raid1 -d single should give you that.
Just a small bug, perhaps:
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 04:25:00PM +0200, Helmut Hullen wrote:
Du meintest am 07.05.12:
[...]
With a file system like ext2/3/4 I can work with several directories
which are mounted together, but (as said before) one broken disk
doesn't disturb the others.
mkfs.btrfs -m raid1 -d
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 05:54:38PM +0200, Arne Jansen wrote:
@@ -97,30 +119,87 @@ struct reada_machine_work {
+/*
+ * this is the default callback for readahead. It just descends into the
+ * tree within the range given at creation. if an error occurs, just cut
+ * this part of the tree
+ */
Hi,
On 05/08/2012 10:56 PM, Roman Mamedov wrote:
Regarding btrfs, AFAIK even btrfs -d single suggested above works not per
file, but per allocation extent, so in case of one disk failure you will lose
random *parts* (extents) of random files, which in effect could mean no file
in your whole
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 09.05.12:
mkfs.btrfs -m raid1 -d single should give you that.
Just a small bug, perhaps:
created a system with
mkfs.btrfs -m raid1 -d single /dev/sdl1
mount /dev/sdl1 /mnt/Scsi
btrfs device add /dev/sdk1 /mnt/Scsi
btrfs
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 05:14:00PM +0200, Helmut Hullen wrote:
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 09.05.12:
DUP is two copies of each block, but it allows the two copies to
live on the same device. It's done this because you started with a
single device, and you can't do RAID-1 on one
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 03:37:35PM +0100, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 04:25:00PM +0200, Helmut Hullen wrote:
Du meintest am 07.05.12:
[...]
With a file system like ext2/3/4 I can work with several directories
which are mounted together, but (as said before) one
On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 04:16:24PM +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
According to section 'Find open-coded helpers or macros' at
https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Cleanup_ideas, here
in the patch we use ALIGN macro to do the alignment.
Well, I wrote this section and some time later also the
On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 05:10:08PM -0700, Brendan Smithyman wrote:
I'm experiencing some odd-seeming behaviour with btrfs on Ubuntu
12.04, using the Ubuntu x86-64 generic 3.2.0-24 kernel and btrfs-tools
0.19+20120328-1~precise1 (backported from the current Debian version
using Ubuntu's
On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 03:57:39PM -0700, Mark Fasheh wrote:
Hi Jan, comments inline as usual!
This function must not call free_extent_buffer(eb) in line 1306 after
applying your patch set (immediately before the break). Second, I think
we'd better add a blocking read lock on eb after
On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 03:11:45PM +0200, Hubert Kario wrote:
nice, didn't know about this. Such functionality would be nice to have.
But then I don't think that a recreate the array if the parameters are the
same is actually a good idea, lots of space for error. A pair of functions:
btrfs
On Wednesday 09 of May 2012 19:18:07 David Sterba wrote:
On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 03:11:45PM +0200, Hubert Kario wrote:
nice, didn't know about this. Such functionality would be nice to have.
But then I don't think that a recreate the array if the parameters are
the
same is actually a good
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 09:44:13AM +0800, Liu Bo wrote:
Let's take the above case:
0k 20k
| --- extent --- |
| - A - |
1k 19k
And we assume that this extent starts from disk_bytenr on its FS logical
offset.
By splitting the [0k, 20k) extent, we'll get three
Helmut Hullen posted on Mon, 07 May 2012 12:46:00 +0200 as excerpted:
The 3 btrfs disks are connected via a SiI 3114 SATA-PCI-Controller.
Only 1 of the 3 disks seems to be damaged.
I don't plan to rehash the raid0/single discussion here, but here's some
perhaps useful additional information
David Sterba posted on Mon, 07 May 2012 17:44:16 +0200 as excerpted:
Hi,
the time of temporary wiki hosted at btrfs.ipv5.de is over, the content
has been migrated back to official site at
http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org
(ipv5.de wiki is set to redirect there).
Thanks. I was
Thanks David,
If I understand you correctly, this would be the case with nested subvolumes;
i.e., if subvolume A is exists within the directory tree subvolume B, and B is
snapshotted. I expected this, and it sounds totally consistent with my
understanding of how btrfs subvolumes work.
I dont know if this is related or not, but I updated two different
computers to ubuntu 12, which uses kernel 3.2, and in both I had the
same problem: using btrfs with compress-force=lzo, after some IO stress
the filesystem became unusable, some sort of busy.
Im using kernel 3.0 right now, with
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 09.05.12:
As to the spurious upgrade of single to RAID-0, I thought Ilya
had stopped it doing that. What kernel version are you running?
3.2.9, self made.
OK, I'm pretty sure that's too old -- it will upgrade single to
RAID-0. You can probably turn it
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 10:24:16PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
2012/5/3 Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com:
On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 09:38:27AM -0700, Josh Durgin wrote:
On Thu, 3 May 2012 11:20:53 -0400, Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 08:17:43AM -0700, Josh
There is various information about
- enterprise-class drives (either SAS or just enterprise SATA)
- the SCSI/SAS protocols themselves vs SATA
having more advanced features (e.g. for dealing with error conditions)
than the average block device
For example, Adaptec recommends that such drives
On 05/10/2012 01:29 AM, David Sterba wrote:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 09:44:13AM +0800, Liu Bo wrote:
Let's take the above case:
0k 20k
| --- extent --- |
| - A - |
1k 19k
And we assume that this extent starts from disk_bytenr on its FS logical
offset.
By
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 06:45:49PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 04:16:24PM +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
According to section 'Find open-coded helpers or macros' at
https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Cleanup_ideas, here
in the patch we use ALIGN macro to do the
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 09.05.12:
btrfs fi df /mnt/Scsi
now tells
Data, RAID0: total=183.18GB, used=76.60GB
Data: total=80.01GB, used=79.83GB
System, DUP: total=8.00MB, used=32.00KB
System: total=4.00MB, used=0.00
Metadata, DUP: total=1.00GB, used=192.74MB
Metadata:
25 matches
Mail list logo
