Am Mittwoch 17 Februar 2010 schrieben Sie: > On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Martin Steigerwald <ms@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: Leaving Cc to backports-users mailinglist and Debian package maintainer dropped as its a technical BTRFS discussion. > > Hi! [...] > > It basically works, but I am wondering it the RAID options work > > correctly. I used: > > > > mkfs.btrfs -d raid1 -m > > raid1 /dev/mango1/homelokal1 /dev/mango2/homelokal2 > > > > on two 200 GiB logical volumes and get > > > > mango:~# df -hT /mnt/zeit > > Dateisystem Typ Größe Benut Verf Ben% Eingehängt auf > > /dev/mapper/mango1-homelokal1 > > btrfs 400G 101M 400G 1% /mnt/zeit > > > > Shouldn't that be 200GiB for a BTRFS Raid 1 setup? > > this has been discussed several times on the list. Sorry, I admit I follow BTRFS irregularily and main point in my mail was to announce the backport. > Since btrfs file level redundancy policy, the proper way for it to > behave is to show full physical capacity of the devices. > Usage will be correctly accounted, so if you write a 100MB file in > that raid1 FS tree > the used space will indicate 200MB of additional used space. Hmmm, that still doesn't match, cause I wrote a 100MiB file to the partition: mango:~# dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/zeit/ddimg bs=1M count=100 100+0 Datensätze ein 100+0 Datensätze aus 104857600 Bytes (105 MB) kopiert, 0,313594 s, 334 MB/s Thus I should have get 200MiB used in df -h. Hmmm, maybe accurate size reporting needs a newer BTRFS than in 2.6.32.3? Ciao, -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
