On 03/07/2011 10:13 AM, liubo wrote:
btrfs will remove unused block groups after balance.
When a empty filesystem is balanced, the block group with tag DATA may be
dropped, and after umount and mount again, it will not find DATA space_info
and lead to OOPS.
So we initial the necessary
Well, the missing file-system checker is the main reason I don't use
btrfs in production environments.
The other issue are servere performance problems in corner cases (e.g.
when deleting 15GB data takes 100% cpu and hours)
- Clemens
2011/3/8 Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se:
Hi,
Alexey A Nikitin
Excerpts from liubo's message of 2011-03-10 03:50:27 -0500:
On 03/07/2011 10:13 AM, liubo wrote:
btrfs will remove unused block groups after balance.
When a empty filesystem is balanced, the block group with tag DATA may be
dropped, and after umount and mount again, it will not find DATA
Excerpts from Peter Stuge's message of 2011-03-08 01:52:55 -0500:
Hi,
Alexey A Nikitin wrote:
I went experimenting with btrfs RAID0 on my USB setup .. because
I'm a reckless experimenter when it doesn't involve production
systems.
I encountered the same broken root node issue. (see
Excerpts from Peter Stuge's message of 2011-03-10 01:23:33 -0500:
Hi Chris,
Chris Mason wrote:
I ran btrfsctl resize -r -3gb /dev/sda2 using wireless-testing.git
based on 2.6.38-rc6 and all seemed good. df reported reduced size so
I repartitioned and rebooted. Filesystem can no longer
Excerpts from Peter Stuge's message of 2011-03-10 08:29:37 -0500:
Chris Mason wrote:
Cutting the power isn't problem unless you're using something
where cache flushes are not supported.
Nod. I've had very abrupt system outage before, without problems.
Which kernel were you on?
Excerpts from Peter Stuge's message of 2011-03-10 08:45:09 -0500:
Chris Mason wrote:
Which tool and which version of the tool did you use to delete the
partition?
fdisk from util-linux-2.18
Straight from util-linux, or with distro patches?
The non-working partition was deleted and the
2011/3/10 Chris Mason chris.ma...@oracle.com
Which kernel were you on? Was btrfs directly accessing the disks or
were things like LVM in use?
Recent kernels (.37 and higher) have improved support for barriers in
LVM and friends, but btrfs directly using the disks should have been
safe for a
Excerpts from Alexey A Nikitin's message of 2011-03-10 12:30:54 -0500:
2011/3/10 Chris Mason chris.ma...@oracle.com
Which kernel were you on? Was btrfs directly accessing the disks or
were things like LVM in use?
Recent kernels (.37 and higher) have improved support for barriers in
LVM
