On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 1:48 AM, Helmut Hullen hul...@t-online.de wrote:
Hallo, Evert,
Du meintest am 04.12.10 zum Thema Re: 800 GByte free, but no space left:
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Helmut Hullen hul...@t-online.de
wrote:
Hallo,
I wrote am 02.12.10:
I use 2 disks (1.5 Tbyte
Hallo, cwillu,
Du meintest am 05.12.10:
I am not an expert on this by a long shot, but it looks like you
added these two disks in raid0.
I won't hope that this error is related to RAID0, I haven't
installed (as far as I know) RAID0.
My installation way:
(2-TByte-Disk)
On 05.12.2010, Matt wrote:
I should have made it clear that the results I get are observed when
using the kernels/checkouts *with* the dm-crypt multi-cpu patch,
without the patch I didn't see that kind of problems (hardlocks, files
missing, etc.)
I have to take back my other two emails,
On 12/05/2010 11:09 AM, Heinz Diehl wrote:
On 05.12.2010, Matt wrote:
I have to take back my other two emails, stating that no corruption
happened with the dm-crypt multi-cpu patch. Today, I encountered
filesystem corruption on one, and a complete hardlock on another machine.
No logfile
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 3:51 AM, Helmut Hullen hul...@t-online.de wrote:
Hallo, cwillu,
Du meintest am 05.12.10:
I am not an expert on this by a long shot, but it looks like you
added these two disks in raid0.
I won't hope that this error is related to RAID0, I haven't
installed (as far as
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 12:48 AM, Helmut Hullen hul...@t-online.de wrote:
Hallo, Evert,
Du meintest am 04.12.10 zum Thema Re: 800 GByte free, but no space left:
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Helmut Hullen hul...@t-online.de
wrote:
Hallo,
I wrote am 02.12.10:
I use 2 disks (1.5 Tbyte
On Sun, Dec 05, 2010 at 04:08:26AM -0700, Evert Vorster wrote:
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 12:48 AM, Helmut Hullen hul...@t-online.de wrote:
Hallo, Evert,
Du meintest am 04.12.10 zum Thema Re: 800 GByte free, but no space left:
I am not an expert on this by a long shot, but it looks like you
Hallo, cwillu,
Du meintest am 05.12.10:
Maybe you're right. But if you're right then I have got the worst of
two worlds. I don't want neither RAID0 nor RAID1, I want a bundle of
different disks (at least partititions) which seem to be one large
disk. And I've hoped btrfs does this job.
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 05.12.10:
If the smallest device defines the capacity then I should use
2*1.35 TiByte, but my system tells no space left at about 2.4
TiByte - where are (at least) 300 GiByte hidden?
devid2 size 1.35TB used 1.35TB path /dev/sdc3
devid1 size
On 05.12.2010, Milan Broz wrote:
Which kernel? 2.6.37-rc?
2.6.37-rc4 on one and 2.6.37-rc3-git2 on the other machine.
Anyone seen this with 2.6.36 and the same dmcrypt patch?
(All info I had is that is is stable with here.)
Both 2.6.36 and 2.6.36.1 with your patch have been running
On Dec 5, 2010, at 5:21 AM, Milan Broz wrote:
Which kernel? 2.6.37-rc?
Anyone seen this with 2.6.36 and the same dmcrypt patch?
(All info I had is that is is stable with here.)
It still seems to like dmcrypt with its parallel processing is just
trigger to another bug in 37-rc.
I've
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Theodore Tso ty...@mit.edu wrote:
On Dec 5, 2010, at 5:21 AM, Milan Broz wrote:
Which kernel? 2.6.37-rc?
Anyone seen this with 2.6.36 and the same dmcrypt patch?
(All info I had is that is is stable with here.)
It still seems to like dmcrypt with its
devid 2 size 1.35TB used 1.35TB path /dev/sdc3
devid 1 size 1.81TB used 1.35TB path /dev/sdf2
Here devid 2 is at 100%, and hence you are getting the no more space
left errors. So, the 300 TB is on the bigger disk, and not usable for
you right now.
I _think_ that a
On Sun, Dec 05, 2010 at 02:44:14PM +0100, Matt wrote:
gcc version 4.5.1 (Gentoo Hardened 4.5.1-r1 p1.4, pie-0.4.5)
This is probably just me being paranoid, but it might be worth trying
using a gcc 4.4.x compiler and see if that makes any difference.
There have been some other gcc 4.5-caused
On 05.12.2010, Theodore Tso wrote:
As another thought, what version of GCC are people using who
are having difficulty? Could this perhaps be a compiler-related issue?
h...@liesel:~ gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: x86_64-suse-linux
Configured with: ../configure --prefix=/usr
Hi all,
in the next emails, I will repost some patches which never were merged in the
btrfs-progs repository.
Two patches are document only and not add new functions, in particular:
patch-1) this patch correct some little problem in the help page
patch-2) this patch makes the error more
Hi all,
the patch below deprecates the following programs
* btrfsctl
* btrfs-vol
* btrfs-show
the reason is simple, these programs are superseded by the btrfs utility,
both in terms of documentation, usability and bug. The goal is to avoid
to duplicate codes and avoid update two programs.
The
Hi all,
this patch makes the command btrfs more verbose when a btrfs ioctl return an
error. The error code is printed as text message by the strerror(errno)
function.
Example:
# btrfs subvol create /tmp/1
Create subvolume '/tmp/1'
# btrfs subvol create /tmp/1/2
Hallo, Evert,
Du meintest am 05.12.10:
devid 2 size 1.35TB used 1.35TB path /dev/sdc3
devid 1 size 1.81TB used 1.35TB path /dev/sdf2
[...]
When I created a file system with
mkfs.btrfs -d single /dev/sdb6 /dev/sdb7
I was able to fill the resulting file system to 2.7Gb
Hi Heinz,
On 5 December 2010 14:33, Heinz Diehl h...@fritha.org wrote:
On 05.12.2010, Theodore Tso wrote:
As another thought, what version of GCC are people using who
are having difficulty? Could this perhaps be a compiler-related issue?
h...@liesel:~ gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target:
I've been using a kernel which is between 2.6.37-rc2 and -rc3 with a LUKS /
dm-crypt / LVM / ext4 setup for my primary file systems, and I haven't
observed any corruption for the last two weeks or so. It's on my todo list
to upgrade to top of Linus's tree, but perhaps this is a useful
On Sun, Dec 05 2010 at 3:28pm -0500,
Andi Kleen a...@firstfloor.org wrote:
As another thought, what version of GCC are people using who are having
difficulty? Could this perhaps be a compiler-related issue?
A compiler problem seems very unlikely here.
What may be an useful
On 2010-12-05, at 12:47, Goffredo Baroncelli kreij...@inwind.it wrote:
Hi all,
this patch adds the command btrfs filesystem label to change (or show) the
label of a filesystem.
This patch is a subset of the one written previously by Morey Roof. I
included the user space part only. So it is
On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 08:24:32 EST, Theodore Tso said:
I've been using a kernel which is between 2.6.37-rc2 and -rc3 with a LUKS /
dm-crypt / LVM / ext4 setup for my primary file systems, and I haven't
observed
any corruption for the last two weeks or so.
Pretty much exactly the same setup
start + num_bytes = actual_end can happen when compressed page writeback
races
with file truncation. In that case we need unlock and release pages past the end
of file.
Signed-off-by: Yan, Zheng zheng.z@intel.com
---
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
index 8039390..2ea98d8
On 06.12.2010, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
A bit late to the party, but does memtest86 pass over multiple iterations?
Yes, it does. This machine had not a single fault in several years, it's
absolutely rock-stable. These freezes/corruptions are the first ones ever,
and they vanish when I go down
On thu, 02 Dec 2010 11:33:40 -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
Excerpts from Miao Xie's message of 2010-12-01 03:09:35 -0500:
Compare with Ext3/4, the performance of file creation and deletion on btrfs
is very poor. the reason is that btrfs must do a lot of b+ tree insertions,
such as inode item,
Da: jeromepou...@gmail.com
Data: 06/12/2010 1.48
A: kreij...@inwind.itkreij...@inwind.it
Cc: chris.ma...@oracle.comchris.ma...@oracle.com, linux-bt...@vger.
kernel.orglinux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, Felix Blankefelixbla...@gmail.
com
Ogg: Re: [PATCH 5/5][REPOST][BTRFS-PROGS] Add the quot;btrfs
28 matches
Mail list logo
