search for: kario

Hi, I am using 2.6.36.3 kernel with btrfs, 512MB memory and a very slow disk, no special options for mounting btrfs except noatime. Now I found it very slow. When I rm a 5GB movie, it took 20 secs. -- 竹密岂妨流水过 山高哪阻野云飞 -- 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

Hi, I''m trying to convert two ext4 FS to btrfs, but I''m surprised by the time needed to do that conversion. The first FS is on a 500GiB block device, and btrfs-convert is running since more than 48h : root 1978 25.6 47.7 748308 732556 ? D Feb18 944:44 btrfs-convert /dev/vg-backup/backup The second is on a 340GiB block device, and the processing time is similar

On Fri, 29 May 2015, Hubert Kario wrote: > Not really, no. > > We can use this time an initial seed of "OpenSSH 1024 bit prime, attempt #1". > Next time we generate the primes we can use the initial seed of "2017 OpenSSH > 1024 bit prime, attempt #1", but we can use just as well a "2nd gen...

...and NATted segments. re: use of a stunnel - how does this turn 40-bit https into >40-bit https. Sounds like a man-in-the-middle I do not want to know about (but should learn about just the same - aka the sand is not so deep I can bury my head completely :) On Mar 27, 2015 2:37 PM, "Hubert Kario" <hkario at redhat.com> wrote: > On Friday 27 March 2015 14:15:47 Gert Doering wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 12:53:05PM +0100, Hubert Kario wrote: > > > On Thursday 26 March 2015 11:19:28 Michael Felt wrote: > > > > Experience:...

Hi, On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 12:53:05PM +0100, Hubert Kario wrote: > On Thursday 26 March 2015 11:19:28 Michael Felt wrote: > > Experience: I have some hardware, on an internal network - that only > > supports 40-bit ssl. I am forced to continue to use FF v17 because that was > > the last browser to provide SSL40-bit support. My securit...

On Wed 2015-05-27 05:23:41 -0400, Hubert Kario wrote: > On Tuesday 26 May 2015 15:10:01 Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: >> On Tue 2015-05-26 14:02:07 -0400, Hubert Kario wrote: >> > OEIS A014233 >> >> Hm, this is a sequence, but not an algorithm. It looks to me like it is >> not exhaustive, just a list of those...

On Tue 2015-05-26 12:57:05 -0400, Hubert Kario wrote: > creating composites that will pass even 100000 rounds of Miller-Rabin is > relatively simple.... > (assuming the values for M-R tests are picked randomly) Can you point me to the algorithms for doing that? This would suggest that we really do want primality proofs (and a good w...

On Thu, 28 May 2015, Hubert Kario wrote: > > If this is the only attack you're trying to address, and you've > > already limited yourself to safe primes, then NUMS properties don't > > really add anything. The NUMS approach is there are to try to avoid > > the possibility of other, unknown crypt...

Hi, On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 02:36:50PM +0100, Hubert Kario wrote: > > Same thing with needing sshv1 to access old network gear where even sshv1 > > was an achievement. "Throw away gear that does its job perfectly well, > > but has no sshv2 for *management*" or "keep around an ssh v1 capable > > client"? > &g...

On Tue 2015-05-26 14:02:07 -0400, Hubert Kario wrote: > On Tuesday 26 May 2015 13:43:13 Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: >> On Tue 2015-05-26 12:57:05 -0400, Hubert Kario wrote: >> > creating composites that will pass even 100000 rounds of Miller-Rabin is >> > relatively simple.... >> > (assuming the values for M-R...

I realise that the hard link limit is in the queue to fix, and I read the recent thread as well as the older (october I think) thread. I just wanted to note that BackupPC *does* in fact run into the hard link limit, and its due to the dpkg configuration scripts. BackupPC hard links files with the same content together by scanning new files and linking them together, whether or not they started

...d for S-1-5-21-1526631811-284521863-152487935-11025 [2012/01/05 21:13:03.349804, 3] smbd/error.c:80(error_packet_set) error packet at smbd/nttrans.c(1909) cmd=160 (SMBnttrans) NT_STATUS_INVALID_OWNER Is setting the primary group possible, or do I have to do it from shell? Regards, -- Hubert Kario QBS - Quality Business Software 02-656 Warszawa, ul. Ksawer?w 30/85 tel. +48 (22) 646-61-51, 646-74-24 www.qbs.com.pl

Hi, This patch add a new macro called btrfs_error(...) which deprecate the use of fprintf(stderr, ...) regards, Eduardo

Hi all, Just a quick question but can''t find an obvious answer. Can I create/convert a existing (btrfs) directory into a subvolume? It would be very helpful when transferring ''partitions'' into btrfs. I found a similar question way back in google, but that site is down now generally. Thanks in advance. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line

...s a *very* useful feature to have (think offline file-level deduplication for one thing). From what I was able to find in the archives, the only objection (userland operation crossing subvolume boundaries) was rebutted by Chris Mason. Is there something else that I missed? Regards, -- Hubert Kario QBS - Quality Business Software 02-656 Warszawa, ul. Ksawerów 30/85 tel. +48 (22) 646-61-51, 646-74-24 www.qbs.com.pl -- 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....

Hello all. What we have: SL6 - kernel 2.6.32-131.2.1.el6.x86_64 btrfs on mdadm RAID5 with 8 HDD - 27T partition. I see this at top: 1182 root 20 0 0 0 0 R 100.0 0.0 16:39.73 [btrfs-delalloc-] And LA is grow. What is this and how can I fix it? -- Best regards, Proskurin Kirill -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of

Hello, I''ve stumbled upon this article: http://storagemojo.com/2011/06/27/de-dup-too-much-of-good-thing/ Reportedly Sandforce SF1200 SSD controller does internally block-level data de-duplication. This effectively removes the additional protection given by writing multiple metadata copies. This technique may be used, or can be used in the future by manufactureres of other drives too. I

My two-cents removing v1 from the server - excellent. removing it from the client - admirable, but there are many potential operational concerns as mentioned above. I'll chat a bit about personal experience with removal of something as being "more secure" when it's effect is actually lessen "security" Possible solution - even for beyond ? Create a new client that

On Fri 07 January 2011 08:14:17 Hubert Kario wrote: > I''d suggest at least > mkfs.btrfs -m raid1 -d raid0 /dev/sdc /dev/sdd > if you really want raid0 I don''t fully understand -m or -d. Why would this make a truer raid0 that with no options? Is it necessary to use fdisk on new drives in creating a BTRFS multi-d...

On Fri 2015-05-22 00:06:29 -0400, Darren Tucker wrote: > On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 11:26 PM, Matthew Vernon <matthew at debian.org> wrote: >> >> You will be aware of https://weakdh.org/ by now, I presume; the >> take-home seems to be that 1024-bit DH primes might well be too weak. >> I'm wondering what (if anything!) you propose to do about this issue, >>