Re: ENOSPC / no space on very large devices

here we go... Am 20.07.2016 um 08:31 schrieb Wang Xiaoguang: > hello, > > On 07/20/2016 01:31 PM, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote: >> Hi list, >> >> while i didn't had the problem for some month i'm now getting ENOSPC on >> a regular basis on one h

ENOSPC / no space on very large devices

Hi list, while i didn't had the problem for some month i'm now getting ENOSPC on a regular basis on one host. It would be great if someone can help me debugging this. Some basic informations: # touch /vmbackup/abc touch: cannot touch `/vmbackup/abc': No space left on device # df -h /vmbackup/ F

Re: btrfs goes readonly + No space left on 4.3

Am 03.05.2016 um 00:05 schrieb Omar Sandoval: > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 10:48:15PM +0200, Stefan Priebe wrote: >> just want to drop a note that all those ENOSPC msg are gone with v4.5 and >> space_cache=v2. Any plans to make space_cache=v2 default? >> >> Greets, >> Stefan > > Yup, we want to make

Re: Regression in btrfs: properly set the termination value of ctx->pos in readdir

Hi, the patch btrfs: properly set the termination value of ctx->pos in readdir introduces a regression to me. A lot of stuff runs in "endless" or long running loops. An example strace looks like this: msgsnd(0, {1, "\3\0\0\0\247\r\0\0g8\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\345<\1\0\0\0\0\0\35\0\0\0"...}, 56, 0)

Aborting unused transaction

Hi, [447062.309251] Modules linked in: dm_mod netconsole ipt_REJECT nf_reject_ipv4 xt_multiport iptable_filter ip_tables x_tables cpufreq_userspace cpufreq_stats cpufreq_powersave cpufreq_conservative bonding ext2 usbhid coretemp loop ehci_pci sb_edac ehci_hcd edac_core i2c_i801 i2c_core usbcore s

Re: btrfs regression since 4.X kernel NULL pointer dereference

> Am 25.08.2015 um 15:51 schrieb Chris Mason : > >> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 11:00:30AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> I think this is btrfs using a struct block_device that doesn't have >> a valid queue pointer in it's gendisk for ->s_bdev. And there are >> some fishy looking ->s_bdev assignm

Re: btrfs no space BTRFS: block rsv returned -28

is disabled. Stefan Am 27.08.2015 um 08:23 schrieb Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG: > Hi, > > today i had again the no space situation while having the device mounted > with: enospc_debug > > # btrfs filesystem df /vmbackup/ > Data, single: total=18.54TiB, used=17.94TiB

btrfs no space BTRFS: block rsv returned -28

Hi, today i had again the no space situation while having the device mounted with: enospc_debug # btrfs filesystem df /vmbackup/ Data, single: total=18.54TiB, used=17.94TiB System, DUP: total=32.00MiB, used=2.83MiB Metadata, DUP: total=126.00GiB, used=99.45GiB GlobalReserve, single: total=512.00M

Re: btrfs regression since 4.X kernel NULL pointer dereference

Am 25.08.2015 um 11:00 schrieb Christoph Hellwig: > I think this is btrfs using a struct block_device that doesn't have > a valid queue pointer in it's gendisk for ->s_bdev. And there are > some fishy looking ->s_bdev assignments in the code which I suspect > are related to it: > > fs/btrfs/dev-

4.2-rc6: kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/inode.c:3230

Seen today: [150110.712196] [ cut here ] [150110.776995] kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/inode.c:3230! [150110.841067] invalid opcode: [#1] SMP [150110.904472] Modules linked in: dm_mod netconsole ipt_REJECT nf_reject_ipv4 xt_multiport iptable_filter ip_tables x_tables cpufreq

4.2-rc6: cp reflink call trace

I'm getting the following trace on a daily basis when stacking a lot of cp --reflink commands. Somethinkg like: File a 80GB cp --reflink=always a b modify b cp --reflink=always b c modify c cp --reflink=always c d modify d ... [57623.099897] INFO: task cp:1319 blocked for more than 120 seconds

out of space on big devices > 30tb

Hello list, I get constantly no space messages friends m btrfs on big volumes. Btrfs balance always fixes it for 2-3 days. Now I'm in the process to recreate the fs. Are there any options I could pass to mods.btrfs which help to prevent this? Special use case heavy usage of cp reflink and modif

Re: slowdown after one week

Am 13.07.2015 um 13:20 schrieb Austin S Hemmelgarn: > On 2015-07-11 02:46, Stefan Priebe wrote: >> Hi, >> >> while using a 40TB btrfs partition for VM backups. I see a massive >> slowdown after around one week. >> >> The backup task takes usally 2-3 hours. After one week it takes 20 >> hours. If i

Re: No space left on device (28)

Hi, Am 26.03.2013 15:44, schrieb Josef Bacik: Am 26.03.2013 13:53, schrieb Josef Bacik: no - it's just mounted with mount -o noatime :~# cat /proc/mounts | grep btrfs /dev/mapper/raid54tb1 /mnt btrfs rw,noatime,space_cache 0 0 >>> >>> Ok I think I see what's going on.

Re: No space left on device (28)

Hi Josef, Am 26.03.2013 14:30, schrieb Josef Bacik: > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 06:55:23AM -0600, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote: >> Hi Josef, >> >> Am 26.03.2013 13:53, schrieb Josef Bacik: >>> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 01:45:42AM -0600, Stefan Priebe wrote:

Re: No space left on device (28)

Hi Josef, Am 26.03.2013 13:53, schrieb Josef Bacik: > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 01:45:42AM -0600, Stefan Priebe wrote: >> Hi, >> >> output here: >> [ 590.546162] returning enospc, space_info 3, size 0 reserved 0, flush >> 2, flush_state 7 dumping space info >> [ 590.548280] space_info 4 has 6439

Re: No space left on device (28)

Hi Josef, Am 22.03.2013 14:53, schrieb Josef Bacik: > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 06:11:56AM -0600, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote: >> Hi Chris, >> >>>>>>> Which kernel are you running? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -chris >>&g

Re: No space left on device (28)

Hi Chris, > Which kernel are you running? > > -chris vanilla 3.8.3. >>> >>> Ok, with the 3.9 merge window Josef changed how we do the reservations. >>> Are you able to try a slightly more experimental kernel? any ideas what i can check? 3.9-rc3 gives me same results. Greets

Re: No space left on device (28)

Hi, Am 22.03.2013 07:41, schrieb cwillu:> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 12:39 AM, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG > wrote: >> Already tried with value 5 did not help ;-( and it also happens with >> plain cp copying a 15gb file and aborts at about 80% > > You tried -musage=5?

Re: No space left on device (28)

Already tried with value 5 did not help ;-( and it also happens with plain cp copying a 15gb file and aborts at about 80% Am 22.03.2013 um 07:24 schrieb cwillu : > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 12:13 AM, Roman Mamedov wrote: >> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 20:42:28 +0100 >> Stefan Priebe wrote: >> >> I migh

Re: No space left on device (28)

System, DUP: total=8.00MB, used=1.94MB >> System: total=4.00MB, used=0.00 >> Metadata, DUP: total=23.98GB, used=17.98GB >> Metadata: total=8.00MB, used=0.00 >> >> Stefan >> >> Am 21.03.2013 20:02, schrieb Chris Mason: >>> Quoting Stefan Priebe - Pr

Re: No space left on device (28)

GB, used=17.98GB > Metadata: total=8.00MB, used=0.00 > > Stefan > > Am 21.03.2013 20:02, schrieb Chris Mason: >> Quoting Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG (2013-03-21 14:35:59) >>> Hi Chris, >>> >>> Am 21.03.2013 um 19:00 schrieb Chris Mason : >>>

Re: No space left on device (28)

Hi Chris, Am 21.03.2013 um 19:00 schrieb Chris Mason : > Quoting Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG (2013-03-21 04:03:04) >> Hi, >> >> while copying a 15GB file to my btrfs volume i'm getting "No space left >> on device". >> >> Some informat

No space left on device (28)

Hi, while copying a 15GB file to my btrfs volume i'm getting "No space left on device". Some information: # btrfs filesystem df /mnt/ Data: total=18.14TB, used=15.05TB System, DUP: total=8.00MB, used=1.94MB System: total=4.00MB, used=0.00 Metadata, DUP: total=23.98GB, used=17.97GB Metadata: tota

Re: problem with ceph and btrfs patch: set journal_info in async trans commit worker

Hi Miao, Am 15.11.2012 06:18, schrieb Miao Xie: Hi, Stefan On wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:42:07 +0100, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote: Hello list, i wanted to try out ceph with latest vanilla kernel 3.7-rc5. I was seeing a massive performance degration. I see around 22x btrfs-endio-write

problem with ceph and btrfs patch: set journal_info in async trans commit worker

Hello list, i wanted to try out ceph with latest vanilla kernel 3.7-rc5. I was seeing a massive performance degration. I see around 22x btrfs-endio-write processes every 10-20 seconds and they run a long time while consuming a massive amount of CPU. So my performance of 23.000 iops drops to

Production use with vanilla 3.6.6

Hello list, is btrfs ready for production use in 3.6.6? Or should i backport fixes from 3.7-rc? Is it planned to have a stable kernel which will get all btrfs fixes backported? Greets Stefan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message t

Re: problems with btrfs send / restore

Am 15.10.2012 22:14, schrieb Alex Lyakas: Stefan, the second issue you're seeing was discussed here: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg19672.html You can apply the patch I sent there meanwhile, but as Miao pointed out, I will need to make a better patch (hope will do it soon, together

Re: btrfs deadlock in 3.5-rc3

Yes i will do so. Right now i was trying to compare discard with non discard with this simple command: for i in `seq 0 1 1000`; do dd if=/dev/zero of=t_$i bs=4M count=1; rm t_$i; done; But i hit a new bug: [39577.660228] BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at fe50 [39577.

Re: btrfs deadlock in 3.5-rc3

Thats weird, sysrq+w should have a bunch of stacktraces but it's empty, so unless theres a bug theres nothing blocked. Is the box actually hung or is it just taking forever? Maybe try sysrq+w again to see if the one you pasted was just a fluke? Thanks, This one looks better: http://pastebin.

Re: btrfs deadlock in 3.5-rc3

Am 25.06.2012 15:08, schrieb Josef Bacik:> > This isn't showing the guy who's actually trying to commit the > transaction. Next time this happens can you do a sysrq+w and capture > the output and post it here so we can see what everybody is doing? Thanks, > > Josef No problem. Kernel trace: h

<    1   2