Re: Wierd partition behaviour with BTRFS

2014-03-13 Thread Patrick O'Callaghan
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 12:46 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: > For what it's worth, if you experience Btrfs problems, using a newer kernel > is often one of the first steps for solving it. It comes even before running > btrfs check (a.k.a. btrfsck). Yes, word on the street is that btrfsck is a last re

Re: Wierd partition behaviour with BTRFS

2014-03-13 Thread Chris Murphy
On Mar 13, 2014, at 6:23 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 14:27 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: >> >> And metadata is raid1 so it's mirrored on both devices. > > Absolutely no idea how that happened. I definitely did not > (intentionally at least) ask for RAID1. It's the defa

Re: Wierd partition behaviour with BTRFS

2014-03-13 Thread Patrick O'Callaghan
On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 14:57 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Mar 13, 2014, at 4:56 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan > wrote: > > > > $ sudo btrfs fi df / > > ERROR: couldn't get space info - Inappropriate ioctl for device > > ERROR: get_df failed Inappropriate ioctl for device > > Right that should have

Re: Wierd partition behaviour with BTRFS

2014-03-13 Thread Patrick O'Callaghan
On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 14:27 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > >> btrfs fi df /home #this is short for btrfs filesystem df /home > > > > $ sudo btrfs fi df /home > > Data, single: total=78.01GiB, used=73.44GiB > ^ > > So this means the data profile is single, which means it's allocating > i

Re: Wierd partition behaviour with BTRFS

2014-03-13 Thread Chris Murphy
On Mar 13, 2014, at 4:56 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > $ sudo btrfs fi df / > ERROR: couldn't get space info - Inappropriate ioctl for device > ERROR: get_df failed Inappropriate ioctl for device Right that should have been /home but you already provided that info. >> >> So if yours is co

Re: Wierd partition behaviour with BTRFS

2014-03-13 Thread Chris Murphy
On Mar 13, 2014, at 4:53 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > On Wed, 2014-03-12 at 19:22 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: >> On Mar 12, 2014, at 7:11 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan >> wrote: >> >>> (Sorry for the subject line but it's the best I could come up with) >>> >>> I recently installed F20 on a new

Re: Wierd partition behaviour with BTRFS

2014-03-13 Thread Patrick O'Callaghan
On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 00:05 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Mar 12, 2014, at 7:22 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > > > I think you've stumbled into a bug. Since Btrfs directly supports multiple > > devices, it's like LVM or raid in this respect, and for LVM and RAID, > > anaconda might be eager to con

Re: Wierd partition behaviour with BTRFS

2014-03-13 Thread Patrick O'Callaghan
On Wed, 2014-03-12 at 19:22 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Mar 12, 2014, at 7:11 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan > wrote: > > > (Sorry for the subject line but it's the best I could come up with) > > > > I recently installed F20 on a new system with a 120GB SSD and 1TB hard > > drive. I'm using the SS

Re: Wierd partition behaviour with BTRFS

2014-03-12 Thread Chris Murphy
On Mar 12, 2014, at 7:22 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > I think you've stumbled into a bug. Since Btrfs directly supports multiple > devices, it's like LVM or raid in this respect, and for LVM and RAID, > anaconda might be eager to configure multiple device layouts this way. > > So I'm going to be

Re: Wierd partition behaviour with BTRFS

2014-03-12 Thread Chris Murphy
On Mar 12, 2014, at 7:11 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > (Sorry for the subject line but it's the best I could come up with) > > I recently installed F20 on a new system with a 120GB SSD and 1TB hard > drive. I'm using the SSD for /, /boot, /var and swap, and the hard drive > for /home. I deci