On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 07:40:05AM +0700, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
Are there any known btrfs regression in 3.4? I'm using 3.4.0-3-generic
from a ppa, but a normal mount - umount cycle seems MUCH longer
compared to how it was on 3.2, and iostat shows the disk is
read-IOPS-bound
Is it just
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 8:42 PM, David Sterba d...@jikos.cz wrote:
On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 07:40:05AM +0700, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
Are there any known btrfs regression in 3.4? I'm using 3.4.0-3-generic
from a ppa, but a normal mount - umount cycle seems MUCH longer
compared to how it was on
On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 10:46:21PM +0700, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
Is it just mount/umount without any other activity?
Yes
Is the fs
fragmented
Not sure how to check that quickly
(or aged),
Over 1 year, so yes
almost full,
df says 83% used, so probably yes (depending on how you
On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 05:10:13PM +0200, Swâmi Petaramesh wrote:
A couple days ago, I have converted my Ubuntu Precise machine from
ext4 to BTRFS using btrfs-convert.
[snip]
After I had shifted, I tried to defragment and compress my FS using
commands such as :
find /mnt/STORAGEFS/STORAGE/
On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 04:22:08PM +0100, Hugo Mills wrote:
Correct, by default it just checks the filesystem. Just to be sure:
the filesystems in question weren't mounted, were they?
fsck will refuse to run on a mounted filesystem, though in case of a
read-only mount it might be useful
On 07/03/2012 08:52 AM, David Sterba wrote:
On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 04:22:08PM +0100, Hugo Mills wrote:
Correct, by default it just checks the filesystem. Just to be sure:
the filesystems in question weren't mounted, were they?
fsck will refuse to run on a mounted filesystem, though in
On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 09:26:41AM -0700, Zach Brown wrote:
On 07/03/2012 08:52 AM, David Sterba wrote:
--- a/btrfsck.c
+++ b/btrfsck.c
@@ -3474,6 +3474,7 @@ static struct option long_options[] = {
{ repair, 0, NULL, 0 },
{ init-csum-tree, 0, NULL, 0 },
{
read-only mode is default and (hopefully) does no writes to the device,
this would require the --repair option so what you propose is sort of a
sanity check, right?
Ah, I didn't realize that it didn't write without --repair. Yeah,
making sure that people don't try to combine the repair and
Le 03/07/2012 17:22, Hugo Mills a écrit :
What you're seeing is the fact that you've still got the complete ext4
filesystem and all of its data sitting untouched on the disk as well.
The defrag will have taken a complete new copy of the data but not
removed the ext4 copy.
I though about
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 10:22 PM, Hugo Mills h...@carfax.org.uk wrote:
On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 05:10:13PM +0200, Swâmi Petaramesh wrote:
After I had shifted, I tried to defragment and compress my FS using
commands such as :
find /mnt/STORAGEFS/STORAGE/ -exec btrfs fi defrag -clzo -v {} \;
On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 07:37:42PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 09:26:41AM -0700, Zach Brown wrote:
On 07/03/2012 08:52 AM, David Sterba wrote:
--- a/btrfsck.c
+++ b/btrfsck.c
@@ -3474,6 +3474,7 @@ static struct option long_options[] = {
{ repair, 0, NULL,
11 matches
Mail list logo
