From: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
To: David Sterba <dave@jikos.cz>
Cc: "cbay@alwaysdata.com" <cbay@alwaysdata.com>,
"linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>,
Josef Bacik <JBacik@fusionio.com>
Subject: Re: mkfs devices ordering relevant with devices of different sizes?
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 08:05:29 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120727120529.GA13442@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120726210959.GK17430@twin.jikos.cz>
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 03:09:59PM -0600, David Sterba wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 03:26:20PM +0200, Cyril B. wrote:
> > When creating a filesystem with devices of different sizes, the resulting
> > filesystem total size depends on the device order specified to mkfs. When
> > the smaller device is specified first, the second (larger) device is seen as
> > the same size as the first. This doesn't occur when the order is reversed.
> >
> > It's confusing. Is this expected? I'm using the latest btrfs-progs and Linux
> > 3.5.
>
> Confusing it is, caused by this commit
>
> Author: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
> AuthorDate: Wed Mar 28 14:20:52 2012 -0400
> Commit: Chris Mason <chris.mason@fusionio.com>
> CommitDate: Tue Jul 3 16:27:46 2012 -0400
>
> btrfs-progs: enforce block count on all devices in mkfs
>
> I had a test that creates a 7gig raid1 device but it was ending up wonky
> because the second device that gets added is the full size of the disk
> instead of the limited size. So enforce the limited size on all disks
> passed in at mkfs time, otherwise our threshold calculations end up wonky
> when doing chunk allocations. Thanks,
Ooops, that's definitely not what I intended, I will fix that up right away,
sorry about that. Thanks,
Josef
prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-07-27 12:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-07-25 13:26 mkfs devices ordering relevant with devices of different sizes? Cyril B.
2012-07-26 21:09 ` David Sterba
2012-07-27 12:05 ` Josef Bacik [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120727120529.GA13442@localhost.localdomain \
--to=jbacik@fusionio.com \
--cc=cbay@alwaysdata.com \
--cc=dave@jikos.cz \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).