Mitch, I haven't seen any problems using BTRFS and my patch on 2.6.28 or
2.6.27, what are you doing to cause this error? Are you using the latest
sources from btrfs-unstable?
Lee
Mitch Harder (aka DontPanic) wrote:
> I have also been getting similar warnings filling up my logs.
>
> However, in my
I'm not sure when we should start developing BTRFS support for GRUB but
I do agree that it will be very difficult to support all the features of
BTRFS. As far as I know GRUB does not support LVM and only supports
RAID1. Doing this shouldn't be that hard to do, in fact it should be
easier to do wit
I have also been getting similar warnings filling up my logs.
However, in my case, I have been experimenting with back-porting btrfs
to a 2.6.28 kernel. So I've been waiting for the back-porting efforts
to get a little further along.
But I thought I'd respond in case this information helps.
Her
I'm a Gentoo user and figured mounting /usr/portage & /var/portage
(distfiles, packages, persistent stuff normally in /usr/portage) and
/tmp moiunted as btrfs. I figured it would be a decent test & its
nothing I cann't replace readily. After about 6 hours of uptime and a
couple package merges, I
btrfs_new_inode doesn't call iput to return inode to fs
when it fails.
Signed-off-by: Shen Feng
---
fs/btrfs/inode.c |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
index 3cee77a..2cae014 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/btr
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Anthony Roberts
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A quick googling turns up posts that GRUB support for BTRFS is planned. My
> curiosity is more towards how this will be managed, because the way this is
> currently implemented with software RAID/LVM is quite haphazard. I
> therefo
Hi,
A quick googling turns up posts that GRUB support for BTRFS is planned. My
curiosity is more towards how this will be managed, because the way this is
currently implemented with software RAID/LVM is quite haphazard. I
therefore have some questions about GRUB + BTRFS:
-With GRUB booting, it's
This is essentially a repost of a mail I made last week, to which I
didn't get a reply.
I'm getting huge numbers of kernel warnings whilst using
btrfs. They're all "warn_slowpath", and all seem to be in
fs/btrfs/disk-io.c. I've included one typical example at the end of
this mail.
Kernel
btrfs options can change at times other than mount, yet /proc/mounts shows the
options string used when the fs was mounted (an example would be when btrfs
determines that barriers aren't useful and turns them off.) This patch
instead outputs the actual options in use by btrfs.
Signed-off-by: Eric
I ran a few tests that Jim suggested and found that btrfs works fine on
2.6.26 as long as there are only 23 or less files on the file system.
Anymore and I experience the lockup. Jim and I will be working to find a
solution but if anyone else has any clues that would be greatly
appreciated.
Lee
On
Lee Trager wrote:
The more and more I look at this problem the more I tend to think that
the issue is because of some change in the way the VFS or something
interacts with the file system. Does anyone know of any big changes? Why
is the inode being marked dirty? Is there some kind of read error.
11 matches
Mail list logo