On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 02:34:43PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
2012/5/22 Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com:
Yeah you would also need to change orphan_meta_reserved. I fixed this by
just
taking the BTRFS_I(inode)-lock when messing with these since we don't want
to
take up all
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 02:34:43PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
2012/5/22 Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com:
Yeah you would also need to change orphan_meta_reserved. I fixed this by
just
taking the BTRFS_I(inode)-lock when messing with these since we don't want
to
take up all
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 11:59:54AM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
Hi Josef,
On fri, 18 May 2012 15:01:05 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h b/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h
index 9b9b15f..492c74f 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h
+++ b/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h
@@ -57,9
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 12:29:59PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
2012/5/21 Miao Xie mi...@cn.fujitsu.com:
Hi Josef,
On fri, 18 May 2012 15:01:05 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h b/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h
index 9b9b15f..492c74f 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 11:18:25PM +0200, Martin Mailand wrote:
Hi Josef,
I hit exact the same bug as Christian with your last patch.
Ok hopefully this will print something out that makes sense. Thanks,
Josef
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h b/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h
index
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 07:24:25PM +0200, Martin Mailand wrote:
Hi Josef,
there was one line before the bug.
[ 995.725105] couldn't find orphan item for 524
*sigh* ok try this, hopefully it will point me in the right direction. Thanks,
Josef
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 05:12:55PM +0200, Martin Mailand wrote:
Hi Josef,
no there was nothing above. Here the is another dmesg output.
Hrm ok give this a try and hopefully this is it, still couldn't reproduce.
Thanks,
Josef
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h b/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h
index
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:20:48AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 04:19:37PM +0200, Martin Mailand wrote:
Hi Josef,
Am 11.05.2012 21:16, schrieb Josef Bacik:
Heh duh, sorry, try this one instead. Thanks,
With this patch I got this Bug:
Yeah Christian reported
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 04:19:37PM +0200, Martin Mailand wrote:
Hi Josef,
Am 11.05.2012 21:16, schrieb Josef Bacik:
Heh duh, sorry, try this one instead. Thanks,
With this patch I got this Bug:
Yeah Christian reported the same thing on Friday. I'm going to work on a patch
and actually
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 04:35:23PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 01:02:08PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
Am 24. April 2012 18:26 schrieb Sage Weil s...@newdream.net:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:09:34PM +0200, Christian Brunner
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 08:33:34PM +0200, Martin Mailand wrote:
Hi Josef,
Am 11.05.2012 15:31, schrieb Josef Bacik:
That previous patch was against btrfs-next, this patch is against 3.4-rc6 if
you
are on mainline. Thanks,
I tried your patch against mainline, after a few minutes I hit
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 01:02:08PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
Am 24. April 2012 18:26 schrieb Sage Weil s...@newdream.net:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:09:34PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
After running ceph on XFS for some time, I decided
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 01:02:08PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
Am 24. April 2012 18:26 schrieb Sage Weil s...@newdream.net:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:09:34PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
After running ceph on XFS for some time, I decided
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 10:24:16PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
2012/5/3 Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com:
On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 09:38:27AM -0700, Josh Durgin wrote:
On Thu, 3 May 2012 11:20:53 -0400, Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 08:17:43AM -0700, Josh
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 01:02:08PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
Am 24. April 2012 18:26 schrieb Sage Weil s...@newdream.net:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:09:34PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
After running ceph on XFS for some time, I decided
On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 08:17:43AM -0700, Josh Durgin wrote:
On Thu, 3 May 2012 10:13:55 -0400, Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 01:02:08PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
Am 24. April 2012 18:26 schrieb Sage Weil s...@newdream.net:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012, Josef
On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 09:38:27AM -0700, Josh Durgin wrote:
On Thu, 3 May 2012 11:20:53 -0400, Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 08:17:43AM -0700, Josh Durgin wrote:
On Thu, 3 May 2012 10:13:55 -0400, Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 09:26:15AM -0700, Sage Weil wrote:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:09:34PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
After running ceph on XFS for some time, I decided to try btrfs again.
Performance with the current for-linux-min branch
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 01:13:37PM +0100, Christian Brunner wrote:
As you might know, I have been seeing btrfs slowdowns in our ceph
cluster for quite some time. Even with the latest btrfs code for 3.3
I'm still seeing these problems. To make things reproducible, I've now
written a small test,
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 09:23:54AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 04:22:48PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 04:15:45PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:05:12AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 04:25:02PM +0200
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 11:07:38AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 09:23:54AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 04:22:48PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 04:15:45PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:05:12AM -0400
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 01:56:48PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
2011/10/24 Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:06:49AM -0700, Sage Weil wrote:
[adding linux-btrfs to cc]
Josef, Chris, any ideas on the below issues?
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011, Christian Brunner wrote
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 01:56:48PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
2011/10/24 Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:06:49AM -0700, Sage Weil wrote:
[adding linux-btrfs to cc]
Josef, Chris, any ideas on the below issues?
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011, Christian Brunner wrote
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 04:25:02PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
2011/10/25 Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 01:56:48PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
2011/10/24 Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:06:49AM -0700, Sage Weil wrote:
[adding
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 04:25:02PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
2011/10/25 Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 01:56:48PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
2011/10/24 Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:06:49AM -0700, Sage Weil wrote:
[adding
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 04:15:45PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:05:12AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 04:25:02PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
Attached is a perf-report. I have included the whole report, so that
you can see the difference
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:06:49AM -0700, Sage Weil wrote:
[adding linux-btrfs to cc]
Josef, Chris, any ideas on the below issues?
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011, Christian Brunner wrote:
Thanks for explaining this. I don't have any objections against btrfs
as a osd filesystem. Even the fact that
On 07/14/2011 03:27 AM, Christian Brunner wrote:
2011/7/13 Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com:
On 07/12/2011 11:20 AM, Christian Brunner wrote:
2011/6/7 Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com:
On 06/06/2011 09:39 PM, Miao Xie wrote:
On fri, 03 Jun 2011 14:46:10 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
I got a lot
On 07/14/2011 03:27 AM, Christian Brunner wrote:
2011/7/13 Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com:
On 07/12/2011 11:20 AM, Christian Brunner wrote:
2011/6/7 Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com:
On 06/06/2011 09:39 PM, Miao Xie wrote:
On fri, 03 Jun 2011 14:46:10 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
I got a lot
On 07/14/2011 03:27 AM, Christian Brunner wrote:
2011/7/13 Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com:
On 07/12/2011 11:20 AM, Christian Brunner wrote:
2011/6/7 Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com:
On 06/06/2011 09:39 PM, Miao Xie wrote:
On fri, 03 Jun 2011 14:46:10 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
I got a lot
On 07/12/2011 11:20 AM, Christian Brunner wrote:
2011/6/7 Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com:
On 06/06/2011 09:39 PM, Miao Xie wrote:
On fri, 03 Jun 2011 14:46:10 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
I got a lot of these when running stress.sh on my test box
This is because use_block_rsv() is having to do
On 06/13/2011 05:07 PM, Jim Schutt wrote:
Hi,
On a system under a heavy write load from multiple ceph OSDs,
I'm running into the following hung tasks where btrfs is implicated.
I'm running commit 3c25fa740e2 from Linus' tree merged with
commit cb9b41c92fa from
On 06/10/2011 02:14 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Sage Weil wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Chris Mason wrote:
Excerpts from Jim Schutt's message of 2011-06-10 13:06:22 -0400:
[ two different btrfs crashes ]
I think your two crashes in btrfs were from the uninit variables and
those
On 06/10/2011 02:35 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Josef Bacik wrote:
On 06/10/2011 02:14 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Sage Weil wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Chris Mason wrote:
Excerpts from Jim Schutt's message of 2011-06-10 13:06:22 -0400:
[ two different btrfs
On 05/16/2011 10:28 AM, Jim Schutt wrote:
Josef Bacik wrote:
On 04/27/2011 02:43 PM, Jim Schutt wrote:
Hi,
I'm not sure if they matter, but I got these warnings on
one of the machines I'm using as a Ceph OSD server:
[ 1806.549469] [ cut here ]
[ 1806.554593] WARNING
On 04/08/2011 01:53 AM, Jeff Wu wrote:
Hi ,
I applied the patch to 2.6.39-rc1,took the following steps to compile
it:make make modules_install make install mkinitramfs
but , it seam that it don't run to WARN_ON(block_rsv ==
root-orphan_block_rsv);
i attached the codes and logs at the below:
On 04/07/2011 05:41 AM, Jeff Wu wrote:
Hi ,
I run iozone stress test on a ceph client for x86_64, ceph 0.26 +
linux-2.6.39-rc1 server,
printk WARNING: at fs/btrfs/inode.c:2177
Crap I was hoping I had fixed this, could you run with this debug patch
and get me the output so I can figure out
37 matches
Mail list logo
