Active Topics
-
List of well performing apps on Leste (34)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by biketool - 8 hrs, 56 mins ago -
Maemo repository (5)
to Community by dredlok706 - 2 days, 4 hrs ago -
Re-commissioning N9 in 2018 (127)
to MeeGo / Harmattan by smatkovi - 2 days, 6 hrs ago -
Porting apps to Leste (41)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by Arno_11 - 3 days ago -
N900 is not recognizable on any of my devices (windows 10,7, xp) What can I do? (1)
to Nokia N900 by nieldk - 4 days, 12 hrs ago - more...
 |
|
2015-07-13
, 21:16
|
|
Posts: 2,355 |
Thanked: 5,249 times |
Joined on Jan 2009
@ Barcelona
|
#2
|
If you are on a recent enough Sailfish version, you can try playing with the btrfs-balancer command, e.g. "btrfs-balancer balance" (as root...).
Otherwise, look up the older balancing instructions in jollatogether.
Please note that btrfs is worse than ext4 in almost any benchmark, and I would even say has a more stupid design, save for precisely the features you don't want (subvolumes, snapshotting, CoW). _Specially_ the completely broken version that is shipped on the Jolla kernel. Therefore, maybe you want a ext4 formatted SD card...
Otherwise, look up the older balancing instructions in jollatogether.
Please note that btrfs is worse than ext4 in almost any benchmark, and I would even say has a more stupid design, save for precisely the features you don't want (subvolumes, snapshotting, CoW). _Specially_ the completely broken version that is shipped on the Jolla kernel. Therefore, maybe you want a ext4 formatted SD card...
| The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to javispedro For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2015-07-14
, 06:55
|
|
Posts: 839 |
Thanked: 3,386 times |
Joined on Mar 2009
|
#3
|
Needed:
Luckily I had space for it.
-> Great.
But this is not acceptable that I (as an user) needed to do that.
Code:
zypper install btrfs-balancer
Code:
btrfs fi show devid 1 size 13.75GiB used 13.75GiB path /dev/mmcblk0p28 btrfs-balancer balance btrfs fi show devid 1 size 13.75GiB used 9.82GiB path /dev/mmcblk0p28
But this is not acceptable that I (as an user) needed to do that.
| The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to AapoRantalainen For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
|
2015-07-14
, 08:03
|
|
Posts: 6,436 |
Thanked: 12,701 times |
Joined on Nov 2011
@ Ängelholm, Sweden
|
#4
|
you do not need to do that manually. the only you need is to keep your phone on charger at night, and it will balance automatically when needed.
| The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to coderus For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2015-07-14
, 08:11
|
|
Posts: 1,298 |
Thanked: 4,322 times |
Joined on Oct 2014
|
#5
|
Originally Posted by coderus
Thats how it 'should' work. Not always perfect though :P
you do not need to do that manually. the only you need is to keep your phone on charger at night, and it will balance automatically when needed.
BTRFS was a stupid choice, and gives more troubles than it solves problems.
Unfortunately, it is as hard to ditch as the (in)famous Aegis
__________________
You can still support my work by donation - click here
You can still support my work by donation - click here
|
|
2015-07-14
, 08:30
|
|
Community Council |
Posts: 4,920 |
Thanked: 12,867 times |
Joined on May 2012
@ Southerrn Finland
|
#6
|
Originally Posted by nieldk
Actually BTRFS was a good choise and made sense when it was decided to be used. (and still does) BTRFS has good feature set that is used and needed on the device and is optimized to minimize FLASH wear.
Thats how it 'should' work. Not always perfect though :P
BTRFS was a stupid choice, and gives more troubles than it solves problems.
The real problem is users cramming too much data on the device, so the more sensible choise would have been having the device with 64GB storage in the first place...
Originally Posted by nieldk
Totally different thing, Aegis was meant to be a barrier for users, whereas Jolla choise of FS is a blessing for you
Unfortunately, it is as hard to ditch as the (in)famous Aegis
| The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to juiceme For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2015-07-14
, 08:47
|
|
Posts: 1,298 |
Thanked: 4,322 times |
Joined on Oct 2014
|
#7
|
Originally Posted by juiceme
I dont see how running btrfs balance every night helps
Actually BTRFS was a good choise and made sense when it was decided to be used. (and still does) BTRFS has good feature set that is used and needed on the device and is optimized to minimize FLASH wear.
I disagree with you hehe
Originally Posted by juiceme
Oh yeah! I do that :P
The real problem is users cramming too much data on the device, so the more sensible choise would have been having the device with 64GB storage in the first place...
And +1 for more memory
Originally Posted by juiceme
Yes, different thing, same issue. Cant get rid of it easily
Totally different thing, Aegis was meant to be a barrier for users, whereas Jolla choise of FS is a blessing for you
__________________
You can still support my work by donation - click here
You can still support my work by donation - click here
| The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to nieldk For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2015-07-14
, 08:55
|
|
Posts: 6,436 |
Thanked: 12,701 times |
Joined on Nov 2011
@ Ängelholm, Sweden
|
#8
|
imho btrfs is just because of qualcomm architecture
|
|
2015-07-14
, 11:04
|
|
Posts: 2,355 |
Thanked: 5,249 times |
Joined on Jan 2009
@ Barcelona
|
#9
|
Originally Posted by AapoRantalainen
I fully agree. I mean, I would say adopting btrfs would be a risky move _today_. And Jolla adopted it years ago AND probably knew they would be stuck with their current kernel version. I'd never used btrfs in this situation!
But this is not acceptable that I (as an user) needed to do that.
Perhaps they're still planning to use for something more useful than factory restore (e.g. snapshots?). But I keep thinking that the factory restore usecase would best be served with recovery images...
Originally Posted by juiceme
Not sure about whether it minimizes flash wear by any measure... The feature set is nice, but is barely used by Sailfish (not a bad thing since that makes SFOS mostly FS independent). To my knowledge only factory restore uses _any_ btrfs feature!
Actually BTRFS was a good choise and made sense when it was decided to be used. (and still does) BTRFS has good feature set that is used and needed on the device and is optimized to minimize FLASH wear.
Originally Posted by juiceme
Yeah well, I'm in the group who thinks that if the filesystem fails to handle ENOSPC (no free space error) properly, it's broken beyond repair. On Ext4, reserving around 5% of blocks/inodes ensures this problem almost never happens. On Btrfs, how many blocks you need to reserve? 83%?
The real problem is users cramming too much data on the device, so the more sensible choise would have been having the device with 64GB storage in the first place...
Originally Posted by coderus
Doubt it, since all the other qcom partitions are ext4...
imho btrfs is just because of qualcomm architecture
| The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to javispedro For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2015-07-14
, 11:23
|
|
Posts: 1,298 |
Thanked: 4,322 times |
Joined on Oct 2014
|
#10
|
Originally Posted by javispedro
Doubt it, since all the other qcom partitions are ext4...
Code:
(parted) p Model: MMC MAG2GC (sd/mmc) Disk /dev/mmcblk0: 15.6GB Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B Partition Table: gpt Disk Flags: Number Start End Size File system Name Flags 1 17.4kB 4194kB 4177kB emgdload 2 33.6MB 67.1MB 33.6MB QOTP 3 67.1MB 71.3MB 4194kB Qfa 4 71.3MB 75.5MB 4194kB Qcfg 5 75.5MB 79.7MB 4194kB Qdlog 6 79.7MB 81.8MB 2097kB Qvariables 7 81.8MB 83.9MB 2097kB Qlogfilter 8 101MB 105MB 4194kB fsg 9 134MB 185MB 50.3MB ext4 Qglog 10 185MB 189MB 4194kB modemst1 11 189MB 193MB 4194kB modemst2 12 193MB 195MB 2097kB sbl1 13 195MB 197MB 2097kB sbl2 14 197MB 199MB 2097kB sbl3 15 199MB 201MB 2097kB tz 16 201MB 203MB 2097kB rpm 17 203MB 206MB 2097kB aboot 18 206MB 273MB 67.1MB fat16 modem msftdata 19 273MB 281MB 8389kB ext4 drm 20 281MB 294MB 12.6MB boot 21 294MB 306MB 12.6MB recovery 22 306MB 315MB 8389kB pad1 23 315MB 323MB 8389kB misc 24 323MB 856MB 533MB linux-swap(v1) swap 25 856MB 864MB 8389kB ext4 persist 26 864MB 864MB 8192B ssd 27 864MB 872MB 8389kB security 28 872MB 15.6GB 14.8GB btrfs sailfish
__________________
You can still support my work by donation - click here
You can still support my work by donation - click here
| The Following User Says Thank You to nieldk For This Useful Post: | ||
How this btrfs is meant to be used? Do I really need to read everything about subvolumes, snapshotting and balancing if I want use it just like ext4?