similar to: [PATCH] btrfs-progs: mkfs: add missing raid5/6 description

Add man/mkfs.btrfs.8.in Kept the name with the name in, so that further processing such as BUILD_DATE BUILD_VERSION etc. could be included later. All man pages included in the man directory to avoid file cluttering. Signed-off-by: Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@suse.de> --- man/mkfs.btrfs.8.in | 63 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 0

Currently mkfs in response to mkfs.btrfs -d raid10 dev1 dev2 instead of telling "you can''t do that" creates a SINGLE on two devices, and only rebalance can transform it to raid0. Generally, it never warns users about decisions it makes and it''s not at all obvious which profile it picks when. Fix this by checking the number of effective devices and reporting back

$./mkfs.btrfs -f /dev/sdd -b 2M [...] mkfs.btrfs: volumes.c:845: btrfs_alloc_chunk: Assertion `!(ret)'' failed. Aborted (core dumped). We should return error to userspace instead of the above. Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com> --- mkfs.c | 23 +++++++++++++++-------- volumes.c | 16 +++++++++++----- 2 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) diff --git

Hey A wise man said to me that Hashing filters was my solution to rock the world, and making my life alot easier. When applying 4000 rules, the system had to check them all for match. But with hassing it would only require 1-2 checks. Even though when i had read the lartc on the subject i was no less that a question mark. If anyone have played with it, and have a working, logic configuration

A way of disabling features that are on by default in case it''s not wanted, eg. due to lack of support in the used kernel. Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz> --- mkfs.c | 6 +++++- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/mkfs.c b/mkfs.c index cd0af9ef8b4f..f825e1b6bc2d 100644 --- a/mkfs.c +++ b/mkfs.c @@ -1168,7 +1168,11 @@ static int

Extend mkfs options to specify optional or potentially backwards incompatible features. Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz> --- man/mkfs.btrfs.8.in | 9 ++++ mkfs.c | 124 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- 2 files changed, 123 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/man/mkfs.btrfs.8.in b/man/mkfs.btrfs.8.in index a3f1503..548e754 100644 ---

I can't seem to get the read and write performance better than approximately 40MB/s on an ext2 file system. IMO, this is horrible performance for a 6-drive, hardware RAID 5 array. Please have a look at what I'm doing and let me know if anybody has any suggestions on how to improve the performance... System specs: ----------------- 2 x 2.8GHz Xeons 6GB RAM 1 3ware 9500S-12 2 x 6-drive,

Here are 3 patches to avoid undesired aborts of mkfs.btrfs. These are based on top of Chris''s btrfs-progs.git: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/btrfs-progs.git Thanks, H.Seto Hidetoshi Seto (3): btrfs-progs: error if device for mkfs is too small btrfs-progs: error if device have no space to make primary chunks btrfs-progs: calculate available

So when I couldn't get the raid10 to work, I decided to do raid5. Everything installed and looked good. I left it overnight to rebuild the array, and when I came in this morning, everything was frozen. Upon reboot, it said that 2 of the 4 devices for the raid5 array failed. Luckily, I didn't have any data on it, but how do I know that the same thing won't happen when I have

Here is a short proposal for the hybrid storage cache idea with introduction/motivation and a bird''s eye view of an approach to implement a hybrid storage cache for btrfs. Please note that there is currently no available patches. We would like to get as much input before as possible before we start designing and implementing a solution. 1. Introduction The emerge of Solid State

This fixes up the progs to properly deal with skinny metadata. This adds the -x option to mkfs and btrfstune for enabling the skinny metadata option. This also makes changes to fsck so it can properly deal with the skinny metadata entries. Thanks, Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com> --- V2->V3: update the mkfs.btrfs man page with the new option This is based on

we wipe the filesystem signatures from device before do mkfs, since we can't trust mkfs can remove the filesystem signature absolutely. Signed-off-by: Wanlong Gao <gaowanlong at cn.fujitsu.com> --- daemon/mkfs.c | 9 +++++++++ 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/daemon/mkfs.c b/daemon/mkfs.c index 5475582..19224ec 100644 --- a/daemon/mkfs.c +++

From: "Richard W.M. Jones" <rjones@redhat.com> If you use virt-make-fs to create a partitionless FAT-formatted disk image then currently you will get an error: $ virt-make-fs --type=fat . /tmp/test.img 'mkfs' (create filesystem) operation failed. Instead of 'fat', try 'vfat' (long filenames) or 'msdos' (short filenames). mkfs: fat: /dev/sda:

As those of you who watch CVS will be aware Wayne has been making progress in reducing memory requirements of rsync. Much of what he has done has been the product of discussions between he and myself that started a month ago with John Van Essen. Most recently Wayne has changed how the file_struct and its associated data are allocated, eliminating the string areas. Most of these changes have been

I've got a new PE2950 rack system with PERC controller and 6 drives set up contiguously as one RAID5 volume on the PERC controller. Using 64-bit CentOS 4.4, I partitioned for /boot having 100 Meg, swap having 2 gig, and / with the rest (removed LVM). After the install was complete, the system rebooted and just gave me a broken grub prompt (not the graphical Grub boot selector, but

Hi there, Sorry for the dup, here are more informations. I'll soon run RedHat4 U4 ES with multiple 4TB partitions made of a 7-disks RAID5 array. Almost all files on these partitions will have a fixed size of 32MB. Should I leave the default raid chunk size to 64k with ext3's 4k blocks ? What are the best tweaks around to optimize overall performance ? Thanks, Ionel -- Ionel GARDAIS

Hi, I sent a message to linux-kernel that describes exactly what I did to thourally fsck up my ext3, but now I'm trying to see if I can recover more than the ext3 kernel driver will let me get to... http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=106745677408810&w=2 Now that you've read that, and you haven't given up hope (stubbornly like me), then I'd like to know what I

(It was suggested I send a copy of this to ext3-users, so here it is - note that I need this RAID going so I've rebuilt with reiser, but would still appreciate suggestions; the message was original sent to the lkml) Hi, I've just built an 800GB RAID5 array and built an ext3 file system on it; on trying to copy data off the 200GB RAID it is replacing I'm starting to see errors of the

Hi, originally I posted this to linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, but I guess there are chances that someone in here might comment on it as well. TIA. * Neil Brown <neilb@cse.unsw.edu.au> [2003-03-20 10:58]: > On Thursday March 20, lists@schlich.org wrote: > > > > And when I try to mount the array: > > --8<-- > > EXT3-fs error (device md(9,1)):

Further to my posts a few days (weeks?) ago, here''s an update on the situation. After the the Raid array finally rebuild, CentOS4 installed and now runs without a problem. The card is an adaptec 2410SA SATA raid card. Michael Weisman The Ad Doctors mike@theaddoctors.com