Hello, On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 07:29:40AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: > On Sat, Feb 06, 2016 at 05:41:06PM +0200, Ioan Eugen Stan wrote: > > I've uploaded the package and took the reccomendations into consideration. > > > > http://mentors.debian.net/package/btrfsmaintenance > > what is the state of this package? I don't see it any more on > mentors.debian.net, and it is not in the archive, and the bug is still > open. > > Is a sponsor still needed? On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 11:43:47PM -0400, Boyan Penkov wrote: > Hello, > > I was curious about picking up this thread -- any chance for > btrfsmaintenence to come onboard Debian? > > Cheers! If there are no objections I would like to claim this inactive ITP, because the OP has not replied in over a year and because the package does not appear on mentors.debian.net. In terms of timeline, I expect to complete the initial packaging this week and hope to see it in the archive by the end of the month. Package name : btrfsmaintenance Version : 0.3.1 Upstream Author : David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com> URL : https://github.com/kdave/btrfsmaintenance License : GPL-2 Programming Lang: SH Description : Automate btrfs maintenance tasks on mountpoints or directories This is a set of scripts for the btrfs filesystem that automates the following maintenance tasks: scrub, balance, trim, and defragment. . Tasks are enabled, disabled, scheduled, and customised from within a single text file. The default configuration assumes an installation profile where the root filesystem is on btrfs. . The default values have been chosen as an even compromise between time to complete maintenance, improvement in filesystem performance, and minimum impact on running processes. Please note that I/O priority scheduling requires the use of CFQ, and not noop, deadline, anticipatory, or blk-mq. CFQ is Debian's default block scheduler. Because stretch+1 is the target there is plenty of time to work on the five issues I anticipate (one normal, two or three important, and one minor). My primary concern is preventing issues like the following: https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg55364.html That "the default values" paragraph in the description probably needs to be rewritten in light of this, at least until this type of issue is solved, or the package should maybe go in experimental. Sincerely, Nicholas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature