2009/2/26 Josef Bacik :
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 02:13:10PM -0500, Chris Ball wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This patch (against experimental HEAD) attempts to make shrinking more
>> robust, by only updating device size if we've succeeded in creating
>> enough free space without any failures in btrfs_relocat
On Miércoles 25 Febrero 2009 23:55:08 Steven Pratt escribió:
> Unless I am missing something, what you are referring to is a simple
> wraping/alignment issue in the key on the long name on the experimental
> btrfs. It is the Brown bar. Let me know if this is not the issue.
doh, you're right.
A second update to this. It seems the problem is that btrfs gets stuck
in an infinite loop while in tree_insert. I'm not sure why yet. Below is
my back trace incase anyone wants to have a look.
[ 9824.393942] SysRq : Show Blocked State
[ 9824.393942] taskPC stack pid father
[ 9
Diego Calleja wrote:
On Miércoles 25 Febrero 2009 22:07:33 Steven Pratt escribió:
All in all good progress. Results and graphs can be found here:
http://btrfs.boxacle.net/repository/raid/history/History.html
Some graphs seem to be broken...btrfs gets a "transparent" color.
Unles
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 02:26:43PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
> [ resend with the list cc'd ]
>
> On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 12:50 -0600, Mitch Harder (aka DontPanic) wrote:
> > I'll try to test that out.
> >
> > I had just noticed that some of my kernel configuration settings (not
> > sure which ones)
On Miércoles 25 Febrero 2009 22:07:33 Steven Pratt escribió:
> All in all good progress. Results and graphs can be found here:
>
> http://btrfs.boxacle.net/repository/raid/history/History.html
Some graphs seem to be broken...btrfs gets a "transparent" color.
For example here:
http://btrfs.box
Have completed the first run of the experimental branch on my RAID
system and the results are encouraging.
Compared to 2.6.29-rc2:
Large file creates increase 50% plus across all thread counts.
Mail Server is up about 20%
Random reads are pretty much flat
Random Writes are up 50% or more
Sequ
On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 13:04 -0700, Anthony Roberts wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> Cheers for the informative response. :)
>
> > In the ideal implementation, the grub.conf has a list of devices it is
> > allowed to scan, and we put the FS uuid directly in there, let grub scan
> > them and we'll be able to
On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 17:48 -0500, Eric Paris wrote:
> 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 out
Hi Chris,
Cheers for the informative response. :)
> In the ideal implementation, the grub.conf has a list of devices it is
> allowed to scan, and we put the FS uuid directly in there, let grub scan
> them and we'll be able to boot off multiple volumes in that way.
Hm... perhaps it doesn't even n
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 02:13:10PM -0500, Chris Ball wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This patch (against experimental HEAD) attempts to make shrinking more
> robust, by only updating device size if we've succeeded in creating
> enough free space without any failures in btrfs_relocate_chunk().
>
> Here's a log w
On Thu 2009-02-05 09:19:28, jim owens wrote:
> Pavel Machek wrote:
>>> If you don't want it, don't compile it in. The Kconfig text is very
>>> clear.
>>
>> No, I'd not expect that option to panic systems. That's why I
>> suggested:
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/xfs/Kconfig b/fs/xfs/Kconfig
>> index 29228f
[ resend with the list cc'd ]
On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 12:50 -0600, Mitch Harder (aka DontPanic) wrote:
> I'll try to test that out.
>
> I had just noticed that some of my kernel configuration settings (not
> sure which ones) seem to affect the clean_tree_block warnings I've
> been getting, and one
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 01:36:26PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 23:02 +, Hugo Mills wrote:
> > This is essentially a repost of a mail I made last week, to which I
> > didn't get a reply.
>
> Sorry I missed replying to this one last week, thanks for resending.
Not a pro
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 20:09 -0800, Wil Reichert wrote:
>> 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
Hi,
This patch (against experimental HEAD) attempts to make shrinking more
robust, by only updating device size if we've succeeded in creating
enough free space without any failures in btrfs_relocate_chunk().
Here's a log with my patch applied. The two things to note are that a
near-limit shrink
On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 23:02 +, Hugo Mills wrote:
> This is essentially a repost of a mail I made last week, to which I
> didn't get a reply.
>
Sorry I missed replying to this one last week, thanks for resending.
>I'm getting huge numbers of kernel warnings whilst using
> btrfs. They're a
On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 18:32 -0700, 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
> theref
On Mi, 25.02.09 01:03 Lee Trager wrote:
> 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
On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 20:09 -0800, Wil Reichert wrote:
> 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.
The messages attached are only "WARNING" messages.
I have not been encountering a crash, nor does the data seem to get
corrupted in my case (as far as I can tell).
Btrfs seems to actually work fine, except for the large amount of log messages.
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 11:05:58AM -0500, Lee Trager wrote:
> But what are you doing to the filesystem when it crashes? How did you
> mount it?
In my case, it's mounted with this fstab entry:
/dev/media/scratch /media/vlad/video/video btrfs noatime,nosuid,nodev
0 0
and I can t
But what are you doing to the filesystem when it crashes? How did you
mount it?
Lee
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 08:03:01AM -0600, Mitch Harder (aka DontPanic) wrote:
> I've been creating a local git repository of full btrfs-unstable sources.
>
> I'll create a new branch off the master branch, and ap
23 matches
Mail list logo
