similar to: Backup of btrfs with metadata?

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

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

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

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

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

What are the recommendations for running KVM images on BTRFS systems using kernel 3.4?  I saw older posts on the web complaining about poor performance, but I know a lot of work has gone into btrfs since then.  There also seemed to be the nocow option, but I didn''t find anything that said it actualy helped. Anybody have ideas? Thanks, Matt -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line

What happened to the hot data tracking feature in btrfs? There are a lot of old patches from aug 2010, but it looks like the feature has been completly removed from the current version of btrfs. Is this feature still on the roadmap?

Hi, I''ve been looking at Btrfs and have a couple of naive questions that don''t seem to be answered on the wiki or in the articles I''ve read on the filesystem. First: discovering a file''s checksum value. Here''s the scenario: software is writing some data as a fresh file. This software happens to know (a priori) the checksum of this data; for

I think I have some failing hard drives, they are disconnected for now. stan {~} root# btrfs filesystem show Label: none uuid: d71404d4-468e-47d5-8f06-3b65fa7776aa Total devices 2 FS bytes used 6.27GB devid 1 size 9.31GB used 8.16GB path /dev/sde6 *** Some devices missing Label: none uuid: b142f575-df1c-4a57-8846-a43b979e2e09 Total devices 8 FS bytes used

I''m looking to try BTRFS on a SSD, and I would like to know what SSD optimizations it applies. Is there a comprehensive list of what ssd mount option does? How are the blocks and metadata arranged? Are there options available comparable to ext2/ext3 to help reduce wear and improve performance? Specifically, on ext2 (journal means more writes, so I don''t use ext3 on SSDs,

Hi Anthony, I think that for you may be interested to read this thread http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-btrfs/2009/11/20/6588643/thread and to read a my blog about this argument http://kreijack.blogspot.com/2010/01/linux-btrfs-example-of-layout.html Regards Goffredo >----Messaggio originale---- >Da: anthony@extof.me >Data: 19/05/2010 8.50 >A:

It''s been nearly a year since the patches needed to implement a reflinked copy between subvolumes have been posted (http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/9865 ) and I still get "Invalid cross-device link" error with Linux 3.2.4 while I try to do a cp --reflink between subvolumes. This is a *very* useful feature to have (think offline file-level

sorry forgot to follow the protocol, now included RFC in the subject. Hi, Appears that no one is working on the auto-snapshot feature for btrfs, so here I am implementing the same. Below is a draft on the feature list. Any comments / questions / suggestions are welcome, please do let me know. btrfs auto snapshot feature will include: Initially: - configurable timely

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?

Hi all! I want to use 'acl group control' setting to delegate privileges to specific administrators. Unfortunately, I'm unable to set the primary group using windows file permissions dialog, I can only add and remove ACL groups. I tried to do this by removing all groups but one from Windows. This doesn't work: the primary group has all privs removed and the extra group is

I''ve been experimenting lately with btrfs RAID1 implementation and have to say that it is performing quite well, but there are few problems: * when I purposefully damage partitions on which btrfs stores data (for example, by changing the case of letters) it will read the other copy and return correct data. It doesn''t report in dmesg this fact every time, but it does

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

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 security is weakened > > because I cannot

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 generation > OpenSSH 1024 bit DH parameters, try number 1".