From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from imap.thunk.org ([74.207.234.97]:56268 "EHLO imap.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753735AbbHaSLc (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Aug 2015 14:11:32 -0400 Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 14:11:27 -0400 From: "Theodore Ts'o" To: Chandan Rajendra Cc: fstests@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, chandan@mykolab.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] generic/224: Increase filesystem instance size to 1.5 GiB Message-ID: <20150831181127.GB7642@thunk.org> References: <1440945981-323-1-git-send-email-chandan@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1440945981-323-1-git-send-email-chandan@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 08:16:21PM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote: > For small filesystem instances (i.e. size <= 1 GiB), mkfs.btrfs fails when > "data block size" does not match with the "metadata block size" specified on > the mkfs.btrfs command line. This commit increases the size of filesystem > instance created so that the test can be executed on subpagesize-blocksize > Btrfs instances which have different values for data and metadata blocksizes. Stupid question --- why isn't this considered a bug in mkfs.btrfs? Does btrfs simply not support file systems <= 1 GB? So if someone has a 1GB USB disk or SD card, what's the official advice from the btrfs developers? Use xfs or ext4? - Ted