Hi, I am trying to switch my BackupPC filesystem to btrfs, so I upgraded to kernel 3.7.5 as I understand it has support for more hard links. However I still get the ''too many hard links error''. I looked at Mark Fasheh''s patch, and from my rudimentary udnerstanding it seems like I need to set BTRFS_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_EXTENDED_IREF in the superblock. Is there any way to edit the superblock of an existing filesystem to enable extended inode refs so that more hard links can be used? I even went as far as backing up the filesystem, re-formatting using the mkfs in the latest git version of btrfs-progs, and restoring but it still doesnt work - too many hard links. Aparently the mkfs patch wasnt even applied in git yet? $ grep -ir BTRFS_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_EXTENDED_IREF . $ Does this mean I shouldnt be using the feature just yet? :P Thanks, Norbert -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:33:37AM -0500, Norbert Veber wrote:> I looked at Mark Fasheh''s patch, and from my rudimentary udnerstanding > it seems like I need to set BTRFS_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_EXTENDED_IREF in the > superblock. > > Is there any way to edit the superblock of an existing filesystem to > enable extended inode refs so that more hard links can be used?I''ve once written a one-shot super block "editor" that modified super_flag, if you feel like updating it to tweak the incompat bits, here it is http://repo.or.cz/w/btrfs-progs-unstable/devel.git/commit/0c4a8413af17909c6909f8ad96d3cf72c7c3a537 Otherwise, Mark''s patches add the incompat bit unconditionally, we need a way how to make it tunable in the same way as other mkfs do. I''d say to take them as-is now and extend mkfs later. david -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 06:34:04PM +0100, David Sterba wrote:> Otherwise, Mark''s patches add the incompat bit unconditionally, we need > a way how to make it tunable in the same way as other mkfs do. I''d say > to take them as-is now and extend mkfs later.Well I guess its more of a job for btrfstune. Same way as tune2fs can enable all of their features. Having to reformat seems uncecessary. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 01:25:26PM -0500, Norbert Veber wrote:> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 06:34:04PM +0100, David Sterba wrote: > > Otherwise, Mark''s patches add the incompat bit unconditionally, we need > > a way how to make it tunable in the same way as other mkfs do. I''d say > > to take them as-is now and extend mkfs later. > > Well I guess its more of a job for btrfstune. Same way as tune2fs can > enable all of their features.Right.> Having to reformat seems uncecessary.Right. david -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html