On Tue, 12 Feb 2008, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> Yep. I chose 32K unused space in the prototype filesystem I wrote [1, 2.4
> era]. I'm pretty sure I got that number from some other filesystem, maybe
> even some NTFS incarnation.
NTFS superblock (and the partial mirror copy) can be anywhere
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Yep. I chose 32K unused space in the prototype filesystem I wrote [1, 2.4
era]. I'm pretty sure I got that number from some other filesystem, maybe
even some NTFS incarnation.
NTFS superblock (and the partial mirror copy) can be anywhere except in
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 03:35:57PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> What XFS does is really unfortunate, let's learn from it's
> mistake.
I'd rather say what Sun did with their disklabels was rather unfortunate :)
But yeah, new filesystem should cater for it's braindamage because it
doesn't have any
David Miller wrote:
From: Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:08:59 -0500
I've had requests to move the super down to 64k to make room for
bootloaders, which may not matter for sparc, but I don't really plan
on different locations for different arches.
The Sun disk
> The Sun disk label only allows you to specify the start of a partition
> in cylinders, so if you want to use a filesystem like XFS you have to
> start the partition on cylinder 1 which can be many blocks into the
> disk. That entire first cylinder is completely wasted.
I don't believe a
On 13-02-08 00:42, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
x86 MSDOS partition table layout starts counting with sector 1, which is
(not so intuitively) starting at 0x7e00 (and there's no sector 0,
probably for safety). Well, each ptable format with its own quirks.
I haven't followed this thread, but in case
From: Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 00:42:56 +0100 (CET)
>
> On Feb 12 2008 15:38, David Miller wrote:
> >
> >> I still don't like the idea of btrfs trying to be smarter than a user
> >> who can partition up his system according to
> >>(a) his likes
> >>(b)
From: Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 00:39:16 +0100 (CET)
> On the other hand, the H and S of CHS could be lowered and S increased,
> e.g. divide H by 2, divide S by 2, multiply S by 4. This gives a finer
> bytes/cylinder granularity.
That's really not an option when
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 03:28:26PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:00:20 +0100 (CET)
>
> > Something looks wrong here. Why would btrfs need to zero at all?
>
> So that existing superblocks on the partition won't
> be interpreted
On Feb 12 2008 15:38, David Miller wrote:
>
>> I still don't like the idea of btrfs trying to be smarter than a user
>> who can partition up his system according to
>> (a) his likes
>> (b) system or hardware requirements or recommendations
>> to align the superblock to a specific
On Feb 12 2008 15:26, David Miller wrote:
>
>> (Yes, I had xfs on sparc before, so it's not like you NEED the
>> whitespace at the start of a partition.)
>
>You actully do unless you want to lose significant chunks of your disk
>space.
>
>The Sun disk label only allows you to specify the start
From: Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:04:52 +0100 (CET)
> I still don't like the idea of btrfs trying to be smarter than a user
> who can partition up his system according to
> (a) his likes
> (b) system or hardware requirements or recommendations
> to
From: Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:35:20 -0500
> From my point of view, 0 is a bad idea because it is very likely to
> conflict with other things.
Starting at 0 is a bad idea because otherwise you'll waste
significant chunks of your disk on Sparc because of reasons
From: Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:21:52 +0100 (CET)
> For sparc you could have something like
>
> startlbaendlba type
> sda10 2 1 Boot
> sda22 58 3 Whole
From: Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:08:59 -0500
> I've had requests to move the super down to 64k to make room for
> bootloaders, which may not matter for sparc, but I don't really plan
> on different locations for different arches.
The Sun disk label sits in the
From: Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:00:20 +0100 (CET)
> Something looks wrong here. Why would btrfs need to zero at all?
So that existing superblocks on the partition won't
be interpreted as correct by other filesystems. It's
a safety measure many mkfs programs
From: Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:00:20 +0100 (CET)
> (Yes, I had xfs on sparc before, so it's not like you NEED the
> whitespace at the start of a partition.)
You actully do unless you want to lose significant chunks of your disk
space.
The Sun disk label only
From: Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 08:49:34 -0500
> So, if Btrfs starts zeroing at 1k, will that be acceptable for you?
Sure.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
On Tuesday 12 February 2008, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Feb 12 2008 09:35, Chris Mason wrote:
> >> and slap the bootloader into "MBR", just like on x86.
> >> Or I am missing something..
> >
> >It was a request from hpa, and he clearly had something in mind. He
> > kindly offered to review the
>
On Feb 12 2008 09:35, Chris Mason wrote:
>>
>> and slap the bootloader into "MBR", just like on x86.
>> Or I am missing something..
>
>It was a request from hpa, and he clearly had something in mind. He kindly
>offered to review the disk format for bootloaders and other lower level
>issues
On Tuesday 12 February 2008, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Feb 12 2008 09:08, Chris Mason wrote:
> >> >So, if Btrfs starts zeroing at 1k, will that be acceptable for you?
> >>
> >> Something looks wrong here. Why would btrfs need to zero at all?
> >> Superblock at 0, and done. Just like xfs.
> >>
On Feb 12 2008 09:08, Chris Mason wrote:
>> >
>> >So, if Btrfs starts zeroing at 1k, will that be acceptable for you?
>>
>> Something looks wrong here. Why would btrfs need to zero at all?
>> Superblock at 0, and done. Just like xfs.
>> (Yes, I had xfs on sparc before, so it's not like you NEED
On Tuesday 12 February 2008, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Feb 12 2008 08:49, Chris Mason wrote:
> >> > This is a real issue on sparc where the default sun disk labels
> >> > created use an initial partition where block zero aliases the disk
> >> > label. It took me a few iterations before I figured
On Feb 12 2008 08:49, Chris Mason wrote:
>> >
>> > This is a real issue on sparc where the default sun disk labels
>> > created use an initial partition where block zero aliases the disk
>> > label. It took me a few iterations before I figured out why every
>> > btrfs make would zero out my disk
On Tuesday 12 February 2008, David Miller wrote:
> From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 23:21:39 -0800 (PST)
>
> > Filesystems like ext2 put their superblock 1 block into the partition
> > in order to avoid overwriting disk labels and other uglies. UFS does
> > this
From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 23:21:39 -0800 (PST)
> Filesystems like ext2 put their superblock 1 block into the partition
> in order to avoid overwriting disk labels and other uglies. UFS does
> this too, as do several others. One of the few exceptions I've been
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 23:21:39 -0800 (PST)
Filesystems like ext2 put their superblock 1 block into the partition
in order to avoid overwriting disk labels and other uglies. UFS does
this too, as do several others. One of the few exceptions I've been
From: Chris Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 08:49:34 -0500
So, if Btrfs starts zeroing at 1k, will that be acceptable for you?
Sure.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
On Feb 12 2008 15:26, David Miller wrote:
(Yes, I had xfs on sparc before, so it's not like you NEED the
whitespace at the start of a partition.)
You actully do unless you want to lose significant chunks of your disk
space.
The Sun disk label only allows you to specify the start of a
From: Jan Engelhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:04:52 +0100 (CET)
I still don't like the idea of btrfs trying to be smarter than a user
who can partition up his system according to
(a) his likes
(b) system or hardware requirements or recommendations
to align the
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 03:28:26PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
From: Jan Engelhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:00:20 +0100 (CET)
Something looks wrong here. Why would btrfs need to zero at all?
So that existing superblocks on the partition won't
be interpreted as correct
The Sun disk label only allows you to specify the start of a partition
in cylinders, so if you want to use a filesystem like XFS you have to
start the partition on cylinder 1 which can be many blocks into the
disk. That entire first cylinder is completely wasted.
I don't believe a cylinder
From: Jan Engelhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 00:42:56 +0100 (CET)
On Feb 12 2008 15:38, David Miller wrote:
I still don't like the idea of btrfs trying to be smarter than a user
who can partition up his system according to
(a) his likes
(b) system or hardware
From: Jan Engelhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:21:52 +0100 (CET)
For sparc you could have something like
startlbaendlba type
sda10 2 1 Boot
sda22 58 3 Whole disk
On 13-02-08 00:42, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
x86 MSDOS partition table layout starts counting with sector 1, which is
(not so intuitively) starting at 0x7e00 (and there's no sector 0,
probably for safety). Well, each ptable format with its own quirks.
I haven't followed this thread, but in case
David Miller wrote:
From: Chris Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:08:59 -0500
I've had requests to move the super down to 64k to make room for
bootloaders, which may not matter for sparc, but I don't really plan
on different locations for different arches.
The Sun disk label
On Feb 12 2008 15:38, David Miller wrote:
I still don't like the idea of btrfs trying to be smarter than a user
who can partition up his system according to
(a) his likes
(b) system or hardware requirements or recommendations
to align the superblock to a specific location.
All of
From: Chris Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:35:20 -0500
From my point of view, 0 is a bad idea because it is very likely to
conflict with other things.
Starting at 0 is a bad idea because otherwise you'll waste
significant chunks of your disk on Sparc because of reasons
I've
From: Jan Engelhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:00:20 +0100 (CET)
Something looks wrong here. Why would btrfs need to zero at all?
So that existing superblocks on the partition won't
be interpreted as correct by other filesystems. It's
a safety measure many mkfs programs use.
From: Jan Engelhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:00:20 +0100 (CET)
(Yes, I had xfs on sparc before, so it's not like you NEED the
whitespace at the start of a partition.)
You actully do unless you want to lose significant chunks of your disk
space.
The Sun disk label only
From: Chris Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:08:59 -0500
I've had requests to move the super down to 64k to make room for
bootloaders, which may not matter for sparc, but I don't really plan
on different locations for different arches.
The Sun disk label sits in the first 512
From: Jan Engelhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 00:39:16 +0100 (CET)
On the other hand, the H and S of CHS could be lowered and S increased,
e.g. divide H by 2, divide S by 2, multiply S by 4. This gives a finer
bytes/cylinder granularity.
That's really not an option when you
On Tuesday 12 February 2008, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Feb 12 2008 09:08, Chris Mason wrote:
So, if Btrfs starts zeroing at 1k, will that be acceptable for you?
Something looks wrong here. Why would btrfs need to zero at all?
Superblock at 0, and done. Just like xfs.
(Yes, I had xfs on
On Tuesday 12 February 2008, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Feb 12 2008 08:49, Chris Mason wrote:
This is a real issue on sparc where the default sun disk labels
created use an initial partition where block zero aliases the disk
label. It took me a few iterations before I figured out why
On Tuesday 12 February 2008, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Feb 12 2008 09:35, Chris Mason wrote:
and slap the bootloader into MBR, just like on x86.
Or I am missing something..
It was a request from hpa, and he clearly had something in mind. He
kindly offered to review the disk format for
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 03:35:57PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
What XFS does is really unfortunate, let's learn from it's
mistake.
I'd rather say what Sun did with their disklabels was rather unfortunate :)
But yeah, new filesystem should cater for it's braindamage because it
doesn't have any
On Feb 12 2008 09:35, Chris Mason wrote:
and slap the bootloader into MBR, just like on x86.
Or I am missing something..
It was a request from hpa, and he clearly had something in mind. He kindly
offered to review the disk format for bootloaders and other lower level
issues but I asked him
On Feb 12 2008 09:08, Chris Mason wrote:
So, if Btrfs starts zeroing at 1k, will that be acceptable for you?
Something looks wrong here. Why would btrfs need to zero at all?
Superblock at 0, and done. Just like xfs.
(Yes, I had xfs on sparc before, so it's not like you NEED the
whitespace
On Feb 12 2008 08:49, Chris Mason wrote:
This is a real issue on sparc where the default sun disk labels
created use an initial partition where block zero aliases the disk
label. It took me a few iterations before I figured out why every
btrfs make would zero out my disk label :-/
Filesystems like ext2 put their superblock 1 block into the partition
in order to avoid overwriting disk labels and other uglies. UFS does
this too, as do several others. One of the few exceptions I've been
able to find is XFS.
This is a real issue on sparc where the default sun disk labels
Filesystems like ext2 put their superblock 1 block into the partition
in order to avoid overwriting disk labels and other uglies. UFS does
this too, as do several others. One of the few exceptions I've been
able to find is XFS.
This is a real issue on sparc where the default sun disk labels
51 matches
Mail list logo
