Hi folks,
During a very lengthy btrfs-vol -b (3.5 days in), btrfs BUGged out.
Upon rebooting and trying to mount that fs, the exact same bug (with the
exact same call trace) happens. I moved up to 2.6.33-rc6 from
gentoo-maintained 2.6.32-r2 to see what would happen, and it appears to
panic at th
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 3:46 PM, jim owens wrote:
> but it is the only method
> that can remain accurate under the mixed raid modes possible
> on a per-file-basis in btrfs.
can you clarify, then, the intention/goal behind cmason's
"df is lying. The total bytes in the FS include all 4 drives. I
RK wrote:
> I think so too -- I have six 1TB drives on RAID-10 btrfs and it shows
> that I have 5.5TB free space .. how that can be ?
>
> # df -h
> FilesystemSize Used Avail Use% Mounted on
> /dev/sde1 66G 3.8G 59G 7% /
> /dev/sda 5.5T 28K 5.5T 1% /
Just a short question:
How can I check the data and metadata modes of a multi-device btrfs device?
btrfs-show is of no help and df is still not showing the correct size of it
either (using latest btrfs kernel module and btrfs tools).--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe li
> it is, and reading -> "df is lying. The total bytes in the FS include all 4
> drives. I need to fix up the math for the total available
> space.", it looks like its under control. thx!
I think so too -- I have six 1TB drives on RAID-10 btrfs and it shows
that I have 5.5TB free space .. how
> For me, it looks as if 2.03GB is way smaller than 931.51GB (2 << 931), no?
> Everything seems to be fine here.
gagh! i "saw" TB, not GB. 8-/
> And regarding your original mail: it seems that df is still lying about the
> size of the btrfs fs, check
> http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-btrfs
> noticing from above
>
> >> ... size 931.51GB used 2.03GB ...
>
> 'used' more than the 'size'?
>
> more confused ...
For me, it looks as if 2.03GB is way smaller than 931.51GB (2 << 931), no?
Everything seems to be fine here.
And regarding your original mail: it seems that df is still lyin
Hello everyone,
The btrfs-unstable master branch has some updates:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/btrfs-unstable.git master
It will pull into either 2.6.32 or 2.6.33-git.
These are bug fixes, mostly around btrfs multi-device code and replacing
failed drives. It also includ
Hello Maksim,
Maksim 'max_posedon' Melnikau wrote (ao):
> I'm running btrfs on my sheevaplug on storage attached via usb. I use
> multi-device configuration for testing (use different partitions for
> emulate this). I catched kernel oops on hot removing storage (without
> umount/etc). First one wa
It appears the error return should be negative
Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin
---
But I fail to see how ret can be positive, unless maybe when we already
did a BUG()?
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/file.c b/fs/btrfs/file.c
index c020335..9d08096 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/file.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/file.c
@@ -1133,7 +1
10 matches
Mail list logo
