similar to: Various Questions

Hello, I''d like to know if there has been any discussion about adding a new feature to write (add) data at an offset, but without overwriting existing data, or re-writing the existing data. Essentially, in-place addition/removal of data to a file at a place other than the end of the file. Some possible use-cases of such a feature would be: (a) Databases (currently hack around this by

Just compiled a custom kernel, but unable to mount a btrfs partition. It essentially says ''unrecognized filesystem''. What could be missing? # File systems # CONFIG_EXT2_FS=y CONFIG_EXT2_FS_XATTR=y CONFIG_EXT2_FS_POSIX_ACL=y CONFIG_EXT2_FS_SECURITY=y # CONFIG_EXT2_FS_XIP is not set CONFIG_EXT3_FS=y CONFIG_EXT3_DEFAULTS_TO_ORDERED=y CONFIG_EXT3_FS_XATTR=y

Glück Auf! I know its been discussed more then ones, but as a user I really would like to see the patch for allowing this in the kernel. Some users tested this patch successfully for weeks or months in 2 or 3 kernel versions since then, true? I''d say by creating a snapshot, it''s nothing else in the end. More then one file or tree sharing the same data on disc, or am I wrong?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Is it ( yet? ) possible to manipulate the allocation policy on a subvolume level instead of the fs level? For example, to make / use raid1, and /home use raid0? Or to have / allocated from an ssd and /home allocated from the giant 2tb hd. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi all, this is a new attempt to improve the output of the command "btrfs fi df". The previous attempt received a good reception. However there was no a general consensus about the wording. Moreover I still didn''t understand how btrfs was using the disks. A my first attempt was to develop a new command which shows how the disks

Did something break.. ? we are not reporting raid type after balance. ----------- # btrfs fi df /btrfs Data, RAID0: total=2.00GB, used=2.03MB Data: total=8.00MB, used=0.00 System, RAID0: total=16.00MB, used=4.00KB System: total=4.00MB, used=0.00 Metadata, RAID0: total=2.00GB, used=216.00KB Metadata: total=8.00MB, used=4.00KB # btrfs bal /btrfs Done, had to relocate 5 out of 5 chunks # btrfs fi

Hallo, linux-btrfs, First I create an array of 2 disks with mkfs.btrfs -d raid0 -m raid1 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdd1 and mount it at /srv/MM. Then I fill it with about 1,6 TByte. And then I add /dev/sde1 via btrfs device add /dev/sde1 /srv/MM btrfs filesystem balance /srv/MM (it run about 20 hours) Then I work on it, copy some new files, delete some old files - all works well. Only df

Hallo, "never change a running system" ... For some months I run btrfs unter kernel 3.2.5 and 3.2.9, without problems. Yesterday I compiled kernel 3.3.4, and this morning I started the machine with this kernel. There may be some ugly problems. Copying something into the btrfs "directory" worked well for some files, and then I got error messages (I''ve not

I thought I would try btrfs on a new installation of f14. yes, I know its experimental but stable so it seemed to be a good time to try it. I am not sure if I have missed something out of all my searching but am I correct in thinking that currently: I. it is not possible to boot from a snapshot of the operating system and, in particular, the yum snapshots cannot be used for

If there is no free space, the free space allocator will try to get space from the block group with the degenerated profile. For example, if there is no free space in the RAID1 block groups, the allocator will try to allocate space from the DUP block groups. And besides that, the space reservation has the similar behaviour: if there is no enough space in the space cache to reserve, it will reserve

The Wiki does not make it clear as to why adding a secondary device defaults to RAID1 metadata and RAID0 data. I bought two SSDs with the intention of doing a BTRFS RAID0 for my root. What is the difference between forcing RAID0 on metadata and data as opposed to the default behavior? Can anyone clarify that? Thank you for your time, Mario -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line

Hi folks! Been using btrfs for quite a while now, worked great until now. Got power-loss on my machine and now i have the "parent transid verify failed on X wanted X found X" problem. So I can''t get it to mount. My btrfs is spread over sda (2tb), sdc(2tb), sdd(1tb). Is this something that an offline fsck could fix ? If so is the fsck-util being developed ? Is there a way to

tl;dr version: 3.0 produces “bio too big” dmesg entries and silently corrupts data in “meta-raid1/data-single” configurations on disks with different max_hw_sectors, where 2.6.38 worked fine. tl;dr side-issue: on-line removal of partitions holding “single” data attempts to create raid0 (rather than single) block groups. If it can''t get enough room for raid0 over all remaining disks, it

As of the latest updates to anaconda and grub2 for Fedora 18, it is now possible to install with /boot as a btrfs subvolume. The way that grub2 is handling this is the "reach down" to the files it needs as if the subvolume was a directory. Is this OK? At this point I am not worried about snapshots or any other complexities. If the subvolume name is known. should grub2 be able to

First off, thanks for an awesome file system, it is working well for my purposes of compressing a filesystem on a small VPS. Woot! I thought I''d call out a few things (in the hopes of spurring improvements) I''d seen about btrfs (in case they weren''t common knowledge...):

Hi! I recently tried to mount a filesystem in RAID1 mode using loopback devices. I followed the instructions at [1]. Here''s exactly what I''ve done: $ dd if=/dev/zero of=raid1_0.img bs=1M count=500 $ dd if=/dev/zero of=raid1_1.img bs=1M count=500 $ mkfs.btrfs -m raid1 -d raid1 raid1_0.img raid1_1.img $ losetup /dev/loop0 raid1_0.img $ losetup /dev/loop1 raid1_1.img $ mount -t

I''m currently researching an upgrade to (raid1-ed) btrfs from mostly reiserfs (which I''ve found quite reliable (even thru a period of bad ram and resulting system crashes) since data=ordered went in with 2.6.16 or whatever it was. (Thanks, Chris! =:^)) on multiple md/raid-1s. I have some questions that don''t appear to be addressed well on the wiki, yet, or where

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I''ve been unable to find anything definitive about what happens if I use RAID0 to join an SSD and HDD together with respect to performance (latency, throughput). The future is obvious (hot data tracking, using most appropriate device for the data, data migration). In my specific case I have a 250GB SSD and a 500GB HDD, and about 250GB of

Hi Dongyang, Yan, When testing BTRFS with RAID 0 metadata on linux-3.3, we see discard ranges exceeding the end of the block device [1], potentially causing dataloss; when this occurs, filesystem writeback becomes catatonic due to continual resubmission. The reproducer is quite simple [2]. Hope this proves useful... Thanks, Daniel --- [1] attempt to access beyond end of device ram0: rw=129,

While untar''ing an image to an sd card via a reader, I got the following bug. The system also has a btrfs root, and a whole swath of processes went into uninterruptable sleep. I was able to poke around via ssh and sysrq, and already had netconsole set up to capture the bug. Root fs is on /dev/sdi1, and /dev/sdj2 is the card reader which was the target of the untar. [29571.448889] sd