From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-io0-f170.google.com ([209.85.223.170]:34703 "EHLO mail-io0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934085AbdDGRFW (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Apr 2017 13:05:22 -0400 Received: by mail-io0-f170.google.com with SMTP id b140so53606997iof.1 for ; Fri, 07 Apr 2017 10:05:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <12332db1-c52a-f483-e2e7-e23e508e6066@gmail.com> References: <56b58b49-a4ab-56f9-25e5-94d64699da83@gmail.com> <12332db1-c52a-f483-e2e7-e23e508e6066@gmail.com> From: John Petrini Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 13:05:19 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Volume appears full but TB's of space available To: "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" Cc: Chris Murphy , Btrfs BTRFS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: The use case actually is not Ceph, I was just drawing a comparison between Ceph's object replication strategy vs BTRF's chunk mirroring. I do find the conversation interesting however as I work with Ceph quite a lot but have always gone with the default XFS filesystem for on OSD's.