similar to: Hybrid Storage proposal

-----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, so here it is, LZ4 compression method inside btrfs. The patchset is based on top of current Chris'' for-linus + Andi''s snappy implementation + the fixes from Li Zefan. Passes xfstests and stresstests. I haven''t measured performance on wide range of hardware or workloads, rather wanted to publish the patches before I get distracted again. I''d like to ask

For using SSDs: Are there any format/mount parameters that should be set for using btrfs on SSDs (other than the "ssd" mount option)? General questions: How long is the ''delay'' for the delayed alloc? Are file allocations aligned to 4kiB boundaries, or larger? What byte value is used to pad unused space? (Aside: For some, the erased state reads all 0x00, and for

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, I''m hitting this issue - sda5 is a normal device, nothing to do with loop, encryption etc. # mkfs.btrfs /dev/sda5 WARNING! - Btrfs v0.19-35-g1b444cd-dirty IS EXPERIMENTAL WARNING! - see http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org before using error checking /dev/sda5 mount status Is there something I can do to resolve this? Thank you Lubos -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line

hi All, I''m new on the list. System: Distributor ID: Ubuntu Description: Ubuntu 13.04 Release: 13.04 Codename: raring Linux ctu 3.8.0-19-generic #30-Ubuntu SMP Wed May 1 16:35:23 UTC 2013 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux The symptom is the same with Saucy 3.9 kernel. ii btrfs-tools 0.20~git20130524~650e656-0daily13~raring1 amd64 Checksumming Copy on

This was a request from the systemd guys. They need a quick and easy way to get all devices attached to a Btrfs filesystem in order to check if any of the disks are SSD for...something, I didn''t ask :). I''ve tested this with the btrfs-progs patch that accompanies this patch. Thanks, Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> --- fs/btrfs/ioctl.c | 64

I just setup a new SSD with my laptop root filesystem, and at the time I though, "eh, I''ll just use zlib compression during the first copy, and then switch to lzo afterwards to maintain write speed when I''m using the laptop after the copy and reboot". Now, I rebooted with the new ssd and zlib compressed rootfs, and it seemed to boot slower than it did before with the

Hi everybody, I am using btrfs as my main fs for some time now, but I am experiencing severe performance drawbacks. I can''t qualify the circumstances, but sometimes during disc access the whole system freezes for some time. Maybe somebody could suggest some general things I could try to search for the problem? Thanks in advance, Florian --- Some background information: $ mount |

Here are patches to do offline deduplication for Btrfs. It works well for the cases it''s expected to, I''m looking for feedback on the ioctl interface and such, I''m well aware there are missing features for the userspace app (like being able to set a different blocksize). If this interface is acceptable I will flesh out the userspace app a little more, but I believe the

Will btrfs in the future implement a read cache like zfs has with l2arc, following it''s hybrid storage concept. This would take away the hassle of choosing what and what not should be on your SSD, it would speed up the things you do most. And not what you did a lot a week ago. It should be persistent between boots so your boot sequence would benefit too. I''m sorry if this

Hi! With 3.2-rc4 (probably earlier), Ext4 seems to remember what areas it trimmed: merkaba:~> fstrim -v /boot /boot: 224657408 bytes were trimmed merkaba:~> fstrim -v /boot /boot: 0 bytes were trimmed But BTRFS does not: merkaba:~> fstrim -v / /: 4431613952 bytes were trimmed merkaba:~> fstrim -v / /: 4341846016 bytes were trimmed Is it planned to add this feature to BTRFS

Does BTRFS perform any journal and/or filesystem structure alignment (for benefit to SSD longevity and SSD, RAID array and large-sector device performance) at present? ext4''s Ted Tso will deliver 128KB alignment with the next release of e2fsprogs (ie 1.41.4) [1], so perhaps it''s a good idea for btrfsprogs also, if not already available? Daniel --- [1]

Hi folks, For people who might be interested, here is how btrfs performs with two partitions on a single SSD drive in a RAID-1 mirror. This is on a Dell E4200 with Core 2 Duo U9300 (1.2GHz), 2GB RAM and a Samsung SSD (128GB Thin uSATA SSD). Version 1.03c ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random- -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block--

Hi Seto, please could you update also the man page too ? Why it was not provided a way to clear a *single* flag ? To me it seems a bit too long to clear all the flag (btrfs mount-option clear) and then set the right one. As user interface I suggest something like chmod: btrfs mount-option set +ssd,skip_balance -nodatacow /dev/sdX or btrfs mount-option set =ssd,skip_balance,nodatacow

Dear all, While going through the archived mailing list and crawling along the wiki I didn''t find any clues if there would be any optimizations in Btrfs to make efficient use of functions and features that today exist on enterprise class storage arrays. One exception to that was the ssd option which I think can make a improvement on read and write IO''s however when attached to

Hi! Today I converted my /home from Ext4 to BTRFS by reformatting and copying all over again. I created the filesystem with -l 16384 -n 16384 -d single -m single on an logical volume Intel SSD 320 and mount with compress=lzo,spacecache. Current state: merkaba:~> btrfs filesystem show failed to read /dev/sr0 Label: ''home'' uuid: […] Total devices 1 FS bytes used

Hi List, so first the basics. I''m running Arch Linux with 3.13-rc2, btrfs-progs 0.20rc1.3-2 from the repo and I''m using a SSD. So I was having kernel panics with my USB 3.0 Gigabit card and was trying to get a panic output. These panics are intermittent and most often happen while using Chromium. Anyway so my system paniced while I was in Chromium. After the reboot Chromium

Hi list, I don''t trust theoretical benchmarks that much and prefer "real-life benchs" on the occasion, so here''s mine: Given 4 laptops, the most powerful of which was running BTRFS and the others ext3 or ext4, all machines running Ubuntu 11.04 Natty 32-bit with a stock Ubuntu 2.6.38-11 kernel, all machines were given the following FS-intensive task : - Upgrade

Hi, using btrfs with LVM snapshots seems to be confusing /proc/mounts After mounting a snapshot of an original filesystem, the devicename of the original filesystem is overwritten with that of the snapshot in /proc/mounts. Steps to reproduce: arnd@kallisto:/mnt$ sudo mount /dev/vg0/original /mnt/original [ 107.041432] device fsid 5c3e8ca2-da56-4ade-9fef-103a6a8a70c2 devid 1 transid 4