From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Fahrzin Hemmati Subject: Re: filesystem full when it's not? out of inodes? huh? Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 20:05:13 -0800 Message-ID: <4F49AF79.4020706@gmail.com> References: <4F499498.1040006@gmail.com> <4F499AE4.80908@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org To: "Brian J. Murrell" Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-ID: On 2/25/2012 7:57 PM, Brian J. Murrell wrote: > On 12-02-25 09:37 PM, Fahrzin Hemmati wrote: >> Nope, still in heavy development, though you should upgrade to 3.2. > I recall being told I should upgrade to 2.6.36 (or was it .37 or .38) at > one time. Seems like one should always upgrade. :-/ It's a new, in-development filesystem. Until they say "It's stable, have fun", you should upgrade. If you follow any other filesystem before they've marked it stable and you'll get the same responses. >> Also, the devs mentioned in several places it's not friendly to small >> drives, and I'm pretty sure 5GB is considered tiny. > But it won't ever get taken serious if it can't be used on "regular" > filesystems. I shouldn't have to allocate an 80G filesystem for 3G of > data just so that the filesystem isn't "tiny". All filesystems have their own pros and cons; btrfs, at least while in-development doesn't support small filesystems. Again, nobody's responded to the contrary, but there may be a way to changing the default allocation size to less than 1GB, making your use case viable. I recommend Google. >> I don't think you need to separate /usr out to it's own disk. You could >> instead create a single drive with multiple subvolumes for /, /var, >> /usr, etc. > The point is to separate filesystems which can easily fill with > application data growth from filesystems that can have more fatal > effects by being filled. > > That said, I don't think having /var as a subvolume in the same pool as > / and /usr achieves that usage isolation, does it? Isn't /var still > allowed to consume all of the space that it, / and /usr share with them > all being subvolumes in the same pool? > >> When you have Ubuntu use btrfs for /, it creates @ and @home >> for / and /home, respectively, > Yes, I had noticed that. I also didn't immediately see anything that > prevents /home from filling / as I describe above. > > Cheers, > b. > No, at least not yet, nor am I aware of any plans for subvolume quotas, though I could be wrong. If you wish to use a small space for your /usr, you can either wait for btrfs to support your use-case (or find out how to change allocation size), or use another filesystem that already does. --Farz