On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 1:31 AM, Troy Ablan wrote:
> Yan, Zheng wrote:
>> Thank you for reporting this. Would you please run btrsck and mount
>> that fs again with the debug patch attached below.
>>
>> Regards
>> Yan, Zheng
>>
>> ---
>> diff -urp 1/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c 2/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
>
On 31 Jan 2010, at 18:39, Piavlo wrote:
> Thomas Kupper wrote:
>> On 30 Jan 2010, at 16:18, Josef Bacik wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 11:43:45PM +0100, Thomas Kupper wrote:
Just a short question:
How can I check the data and metadata modes of a multi-device btrfs
dev
On 30 Jan 2010, at 19:20, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 05:57:49PM +0100, Thomas Kupper wrote:
>>
>> On 30 Jan 2010, at 16:18, Josef Bacik wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 11:43:45PM +0100, Thomas Kupper wrote:
Just a short question:
How can I check the data a
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 05:57:49PM +0100, Thomas Kupper wrote:
>
> On 30 Jan 2010, at 16:18, Josef Bacik wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 11:43:45PM +0100, Thomas Kupper wrote:
> >> Just a short question:
> >>
> >> How can I check the data and metadata modes of a multi-device btrfs
> >> dev
Thomas Kupper wrote:
> On 30 Jan 2010, at 16:18, Josef Bacik wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 11:43:45PM +0100, Thomas Kupper wrote:
>>> 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 s
Yan, Zheng wrote:
> Thank you for reporting this. Would you please run btrsck and mount
> that fs again with the debug patch attached below.
>
> Regards
> Yan, Zheng
>
> ---
> diff -urp 1/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c 2/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> --- 1/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c 2010-01-22 12:16:34.203525744 +
On 30 Jan 2010, at 16:18, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 11:43:45PM +0100, Thomas Kupper wrote:
>> 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 i
0bo0 wrote:
> 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
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 11:43:45PM +0100, Thomas Kupper wrote:
> 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 btr
On Saturday 30 January 2010, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
> On Saturday 30 January 2010, 0bo0 wrote:
>
> > Is the goal NOT to accurately represent the actual available space?
> > Seems rather odd that users are simply to know/accept that "available
> > space" in btrfs RAID-10 != "available space" in
On Saturday 30 January 2010, 0bo0 wrote:
> Is the goal NOT to accurately represent the actual available space?
> Seems rather odd that users are simply to know/accept that "available
> space" in btrfs RAID-10 != "available space" in md RIAD-10 ...
As reported more time in this ML, btrfs is able t
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Troy Ablan wrote:
> 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
Hi Chris,
I see that you merged an older version of this patch. But i guess it
still have some issues.
-anesh
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 11:02:45 +0530, "Aneesh Kumar K.V"
wrote:
> Even though we allocate more, we should be updating inode i_size
> as per the arguments passed
>
> Signed-off-by: Anees
13 matches
Mail list logo
