On Nov 22, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Gene Czarcinski <gene@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 11/21/2013 10:25 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: >> On Nov 21, 2013, at 8:04 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 2013-11-21 at 19:52 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: >>>> On Nov 21, 2013, at 5:08 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Thu, 2013-11-21 at 14:53 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: >>>>>> btrfs-progs-0.20.rc1.20131114git9f0c53f-1.fc20 incorporates 16KB >>>>>> leafsize/nodesize by default, which significantly reduces metadata >>>>>> fragmentation and improves performance. Since this is set at the time >>>>>> the file system is created, it would be nice to get this in before >>>>>> freeze. Since it's the new default, it's considered safe. >>>>>> >>>>>> There is one minor regression found, which is 'btrfs filesystem show' >>>>>> reports duplicate volumes. A fix is committed upstream already and a >>>>>> post-install update will fix this. >>>>> Why not just get it in now? Final doesn't freeze for another week. >>>> It needs 2 more karma points, doesn't it? >>> What? I'm talking about the fix that sounds like it hasn't been put into >>> Fedora at all yet. >> Oh, got it. That fix was committed upstream a few days ago. It's a question for Eric Sandeen or Josef if it's possible. >> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1031299 >> >> >> Chris Murphy > Raher than just "btrfs fi show", give "btrfs fi show -m" a try. > > Until the patch is in it makes this a little easier. Another problem however is that this update seriously breaks system-storage-manager (which the package maintainer admitted is badly backlevel). ssm was broken with btrfs with the previous btrfs-progs also, just not as seriously. And as ssm isn't a default tool, *shrug* I'm not overly worried about it. But otherwise I do like ssm. It's nifty. Chris Murphy -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
