On 2015-08-31 14:11, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
AFAIK, it shouldn't be failing that way, and should automatically switch to mixed mode allocation. A 1G filesystem should work fine for BTRFS, but smaller ones will have higher chances of ENOSPC issues (inversely proportional to the size of the FS). I would advise against using BTRFS on such a small disk (I avoid using it on anything smaller than 4G personally), but I'm not one of the developers, and the fact that I feel it isn't a good idea doesn't mean it shouldn't work.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?
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
