Re: BTRFS warning: unhandled fiemap cache detected
Hi Janos, many thanks for your kind answer! Yes, I also saw a patch regarding this for 4.13, good to know that it is not a problem ;-) Thank you again. Mario On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 13:13:08 +0200 "Janos Toth F." <toth.f.ja...@gmail.com> wrote: > As much as I can tell it's nothing to worry about. (I have thousands > of these warnings.) I don't know why the patch was submitted for 4.13 > but not applied to the next 4.12.x , since it looks like a trivial > tiny fix for an annoying problem. > > On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Mario Fugazzi® <fugazz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi everyone :-) > > > > After updating the kernel to the latest one 4.12 I receive a lot of > > warnings in my dmesg but only on my ssd that is a kingston hyperx predator. > > No message get logged for my other two traditional HD that are btrfs also. > > Warnings show only on boot and not on every boot. > > Kernel is now 4.12.5 but I got that till upgrading to 4.12, in 4.11 no > > warnings. > > > > Just wanted to know if I have to worry about this, scrubs are ok and btrfs > > check give me no problems. > > > > Thank you very much. > > Mario. > > > > Some sample: > > > > [ 13.486100] BTRFS warning (device sdd2): unhandled fiemap cache > > detected: offset=0 phys=1960767488 len=8192 flags=0x0 [ 13.486110] BTRFS > > warning (device sdd2): unhandled fiemap cache detected: offset=0 > > phys=1960767488 len=8192 flags=0x0 [ 13.486261] BTRFS warning (device > > sdd2): unhandled fiemap cache detected: offset=0 phys=1960824832 len=12288 > > flags=0x0 [ 13.486280] BTRFS warning (device sdd2): unhandled fiemap > > cache detected: offset=0 phys=1960763392 len=4096 flags=0x0 [ 13.486434] > > BTRFS warning (device sdd2): unhandled fiemap cache detected: offset=0 > > phys=1960767488 len=8192 flags=0x0 [ 13.486446] BTRFS warning (device > > sdd2): unhandled fiemap cache detected: offset=0 phys=1960775680 len=4096 > > flags=0x0 [ 13.486616] BTRFS warning (device sdd2): unhandled fiemap > > cache detected: offset=0 phys=1960783872 len=24576 flags=0x0 [ 13.486650] > > BTRFS warning (device sdd2): unhandled fiemap cache detected: offset=0 > > phys=1960808448 len=4096 flags=0x0 [ 13.486719] BTRFS warning (device > > sdd2): unhandled fiemap cache detected: offset=0 phys=1960812544 len=8192 > > flags=0x0 [ 13.486742] BTRFS warning (device sdd2): unhandled fiemap > > cache detected: offset=0 phys=1960820736 len=4096 flags=0x0 > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in > > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
BTRFS warning: unhandled fiemap cache detected
Hi everyone :-) After updating the kernel to the latest one 4.12 I receive a lot of warnings in my dmesg but only on my ssd that is a kingston hyperx predator. No message get logged for my other two traditional HD that are btrfs also. Warnings show only on boot and not on every boot. Kernel is now 4.12.5 but I got that till upgrading to 4.12, in 4.11 no warnings. Just wanted to know if I have to worry about this, scrubs are ok and btrfs check give me no problems. Thank you very much. Mario. Some sample: [ 13.486100] BTRFS warning (device sdd2): unhandled fiemap cache detected: offset=0 phys=1960767488 len=8192 flags=0x0 [ 13.486110] BTRFS warning (device sdd2): unhandled fiemap cache detected: offset=0 phys=1960767488 len=8192 flags=0x0 [ 13.486261] BTRFS warning (device sdd2): unhandled fiemap cache detected: offset=0 phys=1960824832 len=12288 flags=0x0 [ 13.486280] BTRFS warning (device sdd2): unhandled fiemap cache detected: offset=0 phys=1960763392 len=4096 flags=0x0 [ 13.486434] BTRFS warning (device sdd2): unhandled fiemap cache detected: offset=0 phys=1960767488 len=8192 flags=0x0 [ 13.486446] BTRFS warning (device sdd2): unhandled fiemap cache detected: offset=0 phys=1960775680 len=4096 flags=0x0 [ 13.486616] BTRFS warning (device sdd2): unhandled fiemap cache detected: offset=0 phys=1960783872 len=24576 flags=0x0 [ 13.486650] BTRFS warning (device sdd2): unhandled fiemap cache detected: offset=0 phys=1960808448 len=4096 flags=0x0 [ 13.486719] BTRFS warning (device sdd2): unhandled fiemap cache detected: offset=0 phys=1960812544 len=8192 flags=0x0 [ 13.486742] BTRFS warning (device sdd2): unhandled fiemap cache detected: offset=0 phys=1960820736 len=4096 flags=0x0 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Imbalanced RAID1 with three unequal disks
Hi, I pushed a subvolume using send/receive to an 8 TB disk, added two 4 TB disks and started a balance with conversion to RAID1. Afterwards, I got the following: Total devices 3 FS bytes used 5.40TiB devid1 size 7.28TiB used 4.54TiB path /dev/mapper/yellow4 devid2 size 3.64TiB used 3.17TiB path /dev/mapper/yellow1 devid3 size 3.64TiB used 3.17TiB path /dev/mapper/yellow2 Btrfs v3.17 Data, RAID1: total=5.43TiB, used=5.39TiB System, RAID1: total=64.00MiB, used=800.00KiB Metadata, RAID1: total=14.00GiB, used=5.55GiB GlobalReserve, single: total=512.00MiB, used=0.00B In my understanding, the data isn't properly balanced and I only get around 5.9TB of usable space. As suggested in #btrfs, I started a second balance without filters and got this: Total devices 3 FS bytes used 5.40TiB devid1 size 7.28TiB used 5.41TiB path /dev/mapper/yellow4 devid2 size 3.64TiB used 2.71TiB path /dev/mapper/yellow1 devid3 size 3.64TiB used 2.71TiB path /dev/mapper/yellow2 Data, RAID1: total=5.41TiB, used=5.39TiB System, RAID1: total=32.00MiB, used=784.00KiB Metadata, RAID1: total=7.00GiB, used=5.54GiB GlobalReserve, single: total=512.00MiB, used=0.00B /dev/mapper/yellow4 7,3T5,4T 969G 86% /mnt/yellow Now, I get 6.3TB of usable space but, in my understand, I should get around 7.28 TB or am I missing something here? Also, a second balance shouldn't change the data distribution, right? I'm using kernel v4.3 with a patch [1] from kernel bugzilla [2] for the 8 TB SMR drive. The send/receive of a 5 TB subvolume worked flawlessly with the patch. Without, I got a lot of errors in dmesg within the first 200GB of transferred data. The OS is a x86_64 Ubuntu 15.04. Thank you! Mario [1] http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/mkp/linux.git/commit/?h=bugzilla-93581=7c4fbd50bfece00abf529bc96ac989dd2bb83ca4 [2] https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93581 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Understanding Default RAID Behavior
The Wiki does not make it clear as to why adding a secondary device defaults to RAID1 metadata and RAID0 data. I bought two SSDs with the intention of doing a BTRFS RAID0 for my root. What is the difference between forcing RAID0 on metadata and data as opposed to the default behavior? Can anyone clarify that? Thank you for your time, Mario -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
