[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200802120849.34477.chris.mason@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 08:49:34 -0500
From: Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
btrfs-devel@....oracle.com
Subject: Re: BTRFS partition usage...
On Tuesday 12 February 2008, David Miller wrote:
> From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 23:21:39 -0800 (PST)
>
> > Filesystems like ext2 put their superblock 1 block into the partition
> > in order to avoid overwriting disk labels and other uglies. UFS does
> > this too, as do several others. One of the few exceptions I've been
> > able to find is XFS.
> >
> > This is a real issue on sparc where the default sun disk labels
> > created use an initial partition where block zero aliases the disk
> > label. It took me a few iterations before I figured out why every
> > btrfs make would zero out my disk label :-/
>
> Actually it seems this is only a problem with mkfs.btrfs, it clears
> out the first 64 4K chunks of the disk for whatever reason.
It is a good idea to remove supers from other filesystems. I also need to add
zeroing at the end of the device as well.
Looks like I misread the e2fs zeroing code. It zeros the whole external log
device, and I assumed it also zero'd out the start of the main FS.
So, if Btrfs starts zeroing at 1k, will that be acceptable for you?
-chris
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists