similar to: Webmail Maintenance,

About your price of 1oo,oooo Prounds from N0KIA ATM PR0M0.Kindly provide Name* Address* Mobile number* -- 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.org/majordomo-info.html

Dear Webmail User, Your Mail quota has reached limit, You might not be able to send or receive new mail until you re-validate your mailbox .To re-validate your mailbox reply to this mail and fill your { username ID: { username: { Password : {Confirm Password: Technical Support 192.168.0.1 ********************************************************* Kirksville R-III School Dist. Mail System

Hi, With the current btrfs quota implementation, when you reach a subvolume quota limit, you can''t delete anything without first removing the limit or enlarge it: rm: cannot remove `testfile.bin'': Disk quota exceeded Is there any plan to change that? Thanks, Jerome -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to

I want to make you aware of a possible bug in the reflink handling of btrfs: When I reflink a file larger 2GB (on the same subvol), the reflinking fails. But it works fine for files smaller 2GB in size. I was able to track this down to btrfs with great support of Martin Raiber who created a small demo code: Source: https://urbackup.atlassian.net/secure/attachment/10201/reflink.cpp Compile: g++

Hello. Sorry for writing to btrfs mailing list, but personal mail reject my message. Saying " <chris.mason@fusionio.com>: host 10.101.1.19[10.101.1.19] said: 554 5.4.6 Hop count exceeded - possible mail loop (in reply to end of DATA command) Final-Recipient: rfc822; chris.mason@fusionio.com Action: failed Status: 5.0.0 Diagnostic-Code: X-Spam-&-Virus-Firewall; host

When data in a file is overwritten, starting somewhere in the middle of the file, the overwritten space is counted twice against the space usage numbers. Is this a bug, or did I something wrong? This is what I did: I create a subvolume and limit it to 4 MB, and create a 1000 KB file in the subvol: # btrfs subvol create s Create subvolume ''./s'' # btrfs

Hi there, i''m trying to send/receive a snapshot of my home dir for some time now, but in the end it always fails because the maximum number of open fd''s is exceeded. Kern log says: "6,7226,15012711248,-;VFS: file-max limit 799969 reached" My setup is as follows: Kernel: 3.9-rc5 btrfs-progs: compiled from git commit: commit

Josef''s fs_mark test fs_mark -d /mnt/btrfs-test -D 512 -t 16 -n 4096 -F -S0 on a 2GB single metadata fs leaves about 400Mb of metadata almost unused. This patch reduces metadata chunk allocations by considering the proper metadata chunk size of 200MB in should_alloc_chunk(), not the default 256MB which is set in __btrfs_alloc_chunk(). Signed-off-by: Itaru Kitayama

Hi Thomas, >----Messaggio originale---- >Da: thomas@kupper.org >Data: 22/01/2010 10.48 >A: "Leszek Ciesielski"<skolima@gmail.com> >Cc: "linux-btrfs"<linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org> >Ogg: Re: mount command not honoring rootflags passed > > >On 22 Jan 2010, at 10:40, Leszek Ciesielski wrote: > >> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 10:30 AM,

HI all, >----Messaggio originale---- >Da: chris.mason@fusionio.com >Data: 20/06/2012 1.49 >A: "H. Peter Anvin"<hpa@zytor.com> >Cc: "linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org"<linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org> >Ogg: Re: Subvolumes and /proc/self/mountinfo > >> b. Are there better ways (walking the tree using BTRFS_IOC_TREE_SEARCH?) >> to accomplish

subscribe linux-btrfs -- 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.org/majordomo-info.html

As far as I know, btrfs comes from "btree file system", but why does btrfs pronounce "butter-eff-ess"? -- Wang Shaoyan -- 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.org/majordomo-info.html

What happens if you set an individual file inside a subvolume as nocow (chattr +C) and then take a snapshot of that subvolume and modify the file in both? Will btrfs now ignore the nocow attribute completely or will it do "as few copies as possible"? (I''d love to know if it''s possible to visualize the fragmentation of a single file.) -- To unsubscribe from this list:

When testing out 16KB blocks with direct I/O [1] on 3.3-rc6, we quickly see btrfs_search_slot returning positive numbers, popping an assertion [2]. Are >4KB block sizes known broken for now? Thanks, Daniel --- [1] mkfs.btrfs -m raid1 -d raid1 -l 16k -n 16k /dev/sda /dev/sdb mount /dev/sda /store && cd /store fio /usr/share/doc/fio/examples/iometer-file-access-server --- [2]

Hi, the time of temporary wiki hosted at btrfs.ipv5.de is over, the content has been migrated back to official site at http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org (ipv5.de wiki is set to redirect there). cheers, david -- 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 all, I am using a single volume across two devices sdb7 and sda1, initially created on sdb7, and added sda1 using btrfs-vol later. The fstab entry: /dev/disk/by-id/scsi-SATA_ST31000333AS_9TE12DSC-part7 /mnt/btrfs btrfs defaults 1 2 Now after boot I get: ---- device fsid c4822885057410c-d2d65a83c2f15fb4 devid 1 transid 73034 /dev/sdb7 btrfs: failed to read chunk tree on sdb7 ---- So I have

Hey guys, I was trying to build the btrfs modules from btrfs- unstable.git/master against the Ubuntu Karmic 2.6.31 kernel, and get some failures in ref-cache.c: /home/jdong/code/kernel/btrfs-0.17/ref-cache.h:62: error: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type /home/jdong/code/kernel/btrfs-0.17/ref-cache.c: In function ‘btrfs_remove_leaf_refs’:

Hi, Since commit eecac8a148137ec5c519fc536effce8d6be89ec8 ( HEAD is now at eecac8a... Btrfs: drop remaining LINUX_KERNEL_VERSION checks and compat code ) btrfs kernel module failed to compile on 2.6.27. Older kernel versions not supported anymore? Thanks, -- Gabor MICSKO - http://hup.hu -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a

I''m using Btrfs v0.20-rc1-253-g7854c8b on kernel 3.10.10-1-ARCH. I''ve been using this btrfs filesystem on an SSD for a little under a year with no problems until now. I noticed it was getting a bit full (~79%) and tried to do some cleanup by removing old snapshots. Immediately after, the filesystem went into read only mode. I then followed Hugo Mill''s advice (that was

A couple of weeks ago it was mentioned that btrfs in the stand alone tree would be patched to support 2.6.27 with older versions coming after. Has anyone actually done these patches? I''d like to get btrfs running on 2.6.26(Debian Lenny kernel) and if no one has done any code towards it I''d be happy to do it. Lee -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe