On Monday 31 Aug 2015 14:11:27 Theodore Ts'o wrote: > 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, Btrfs does indeed support filesystem instances <= 1GiB. When creating such instances, mixed block groups are created i.e. These block groups hold both data and metadata. Hence the requirement of having matching "data block size" and "metadata block size" for filesystems <= 1 GiB. mkfs.btrfs when invoked on small filesystems by "not" specifying any block sizes (i.e. mkfs.btrfs -f /dev/sda1) will automatically create filesystem instance with "data block size" == "metadata block size". However in the subpagesize-blocksize scenario, we need to specify both data and metadata block size on the command line (For e.g. mkfs.btrfs -f -s 4096 -n 16384 /dev/sda1). In this case, Since the user is forcing the block sizes and it is impossible to have mixed block groups with differing data and metadata block sizes, mkfs.btrfs will fail. -- chandan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
