Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 04.08.11:
>>>Thanks. We can add those as symptoms to the solution later.
>> I've just run the first test - finding reliable (for only this case)
>> messages is a bad job ...
>Well, it's probably OK just to use this particular symptom for
> now. You've general
Hallo,
I've made a 2-partitions system with
mkfs.btrfs -P Probe -m raid1 -d raid0 /dev/sdb1
mount LABEL=Probe /mnt/Probe
btrfs device add /dev/sdb2 /mnt/Probe
"btrfs-show" (and other tests) showed that all worked well.
btrfs device delete /dev/sdb2 /mnt/Probe
On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 12:00:04AM +0100, Hugo Mills wrote:
>Hi, Chris,
>
>I've finally reworked the integration branch, and integrated what
> should be a good version of the scrub userspace. You can pull it from:
>
> http://git.darksatanic.net/repo/btrfs-progs-unstable.git/ for-chris
Hi, Chris,
I've finally reworked the integration branch, and integrated what
should be a good version of the scrub userspace. You can pull it from:
http://git.darksatanic.net/repo/btrfs-progs-unstable.git/ for-chris
Hugo.
Andreas Philipp (10):
Added support for an additional ioct
All -
It's been a while, but I've finally managed to get the time to
re-work the integration branch, and it's up as integration-20110805 at
darksatanic.net:
http://git.darksatanic.net/repo/btrfs-progs-unstable.git/ integration-20110805
It includes the latest scrub patches, the compile
Hi, Helmut,
On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 11:26:00PM +0200, Helmut Hullen wrote:
> Du meintest am 04.08.11:
> >> I'll try to reproduce these messages ...
>
> >Thanks. We can add those as symptoms to the solution later.
>
> I've just run the first test - finding reliable (for only this case)
>
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 04.08.11:
>> ...
>> failed to read /dev/hdc
>> failed to read /dev/hdc8
>> failed to read /dev/lmscd
>> failed to read /dev/sdc1
>> failed to read /dev/sdb4
>> failed to open /dev/btrfs-control skipping device registration
>OK, that's the symptom we can put in the
On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 10:13:00PM +0200, Helmut Hullen wrote:
> Hallo, Hugo,
>
> Du meintest am 04.08.11:
>
> >What are the symptoms of not having the device node? (i.e. how
> > would I diagnose this particular problem?)
>
> The days get shorter and shorter ...
>
> running
>
> btr
Excerpts from David Sterba's message of 2011-08-04 16:00:54 -0400:
> just for the record: this issue has been reported and a patch is
> awaiting inclusion:
>
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/791822/ (report & discussion)
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/915502/ (last update)
Right, Josef'
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 04.08.11:
>What are the symptoms of not having the device node? (i.e. how
> would I diagnose this particular problem?)
The days get shorter and shorter ...
running
btrfs device scan
produces something like
...
failed to read /dev/hdc
failed to read /de
just for the record: this issue has been reported and a patch is
awaiting inclusion:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/791822/ (report & discussion)
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/915502/ (last update)
HTH,
david
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
t
This patch kills off the calculation for the amount of space needed for the
orphan operations during a snapshot. The thing is we only do snapshots on
commit, so any space that is in the block_rsv->freed[] isn't going to be in the
new snapshot anyway, so there isn't any reason to require that space
Hi,
please move the help text for 'get-default' right after 'set-default',
it's logical and currently it's very easy to miss it (it took me a few
seconds to locate it event if I knew it's there :)
thanks,
david
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 10:48:37AM +0800, Zhong, Xin wrote:
> diff --git a/btrfs.c b/
Excerpts from Mitch Harder's message of 2011-08-04 14:40:20 -0400:
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Chris Mason wrote:
> >>
> >> Ok, so I'm going to guess that your problem is really with either file
> >> layout or just us using more metadata pages than the others. The file
> >> layout part is
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Chris Mason wrote:
> Excerpts from Chris Mason's message of 2011-08-04 11:04:54 -0400:
>> Excerpts from Mitch Harder's message of 2011-08-04 10:45:51 -0400:
>> > On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Chris Mason wrote:
>> > > Excerpts from Mitch Harder's message of 2011
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 04.08.11:
>> you should please add a hint in
>>
>>.../git/mason/btrfs-progs-unstable.git
>>
>> in the file "INSTALL" with at least the contents (please excuse my
>> gerlish)
>>
>> "btrfs" needs the device "btrfs-control". Perhaps you have to create
>> it:
>>
>>
Hi Chris,
as you requested, you can pull my latest patches from
git://git.jan-o-sch.net/btrfs-unstable
You'll find three branches to choose from: "scrub", containing the backref
walking code and patches to fixup nodatasum errors. They have been sent to the
mailing list lately as "[PATCH v8 0/8]
On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 12:10:00PM +0200, Helmut Hullen wrote:
> Hallo,
>
> you should please add a hint in
>
>.../git/mason/btrfs-progs-unstable.git
>
> in the file "INSTALL" with at least the contents (please excuse my
> gerlish)
>
> "btrfs" needs the device "btrfs-control". Perhaps you
On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 10:04:29AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> Excerpts from Simon Kirby's message of 2011-08-03 21:32:10 -0400:
> > Perhaps as a further clue as to what is going on, on this same backup box
> > after all of the rsyncs are finished/killed and a good amount of time has
> > passed (n
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 04:51:24PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> Sorry, hit send too soon. Here is the latencytop patch, after you
> recompile run latencytop -c for a few minutes. Send the output here.
>
> http://oss.oracle.com/~mason/latencytop.patch
Ok, I ran it for more than a few minutes. Ea
We have not been reserving enough space for checksums. We were just reserving
bytes for the checksum items themselves, we were not taking into account having
to cow the tree and such. This patch adds a csum_bytes counter to the inode for
keeping track of the number of bytes outstanding we have fo
We have a problem where if a user specifies discard but doesn't actually support
it we will return EOPNOTSUPP from btrfs_discard_extent. This is a problem
because this gets called (in a fashion) from the tree log recovery code, which
has a nice little BUG_ON(ret) after it, which causes us to fail
Excerpts from Mitch Harder's message of 2011-08-02 10:35:54 -0400:
> I'm running into a significant slowdown in Btrfs (> 10x slower than
> normal) that appears to be due to some issue between how Btrfs is
> allocating memory, and how the kernel is expecting Btrfs to allocate
> memory.
>
> The prob
Excerpts from Simon Kirby's message of 2011-08-03 21:32:10 -0400:
> Perhaps as a further clue as to what is going on, on this same backup box
> after all of the rsyncs are finished/killed and a good amount of time has
> passed (no cleaner processes running in the background or anything),
> "sync" i
Excerpts from Liu Bo's message of 2011-06-21 04:49:41 -0400:
> I've been working to try to improve the write-ahead log's performance,
> and I found that the bottleneck addresses in the checksum items,
> especially when we want to make a random write on a large file, e.g a 4G file.
I spent some tim
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Helmut Hullen wrote:
> Hallo, Leonidas,
>
> Du meintest am 04.08.11:
>
>> Another thing is that there are commands for creating the build
>> enviroment for fedora and debian but I found nowhere in the wiki the
>> dependencies of the btrfs-progs to compile them.
>>
[cc linux-btrfs added]
On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 01:42:34AM +0200, JA Magallon wrote:
> Hi all...
>
> Just a simple question.
> I'm trying to use a 16GB SDHC card formatted in btrfs, and the system
> eats about 2GB for its metadata space. When the card fills, the
> situation is like this:
>
> were
Hallo, Leonidas,
Du meintest am 04.08.11:
> Another thing is that there are commands for creating the build
> enviroment for fedora and debian but I found nowhere in the wiki the
> dependencies of the btrfs-progs to compile them.
> Shouldn't be a list of packages or dependencies for it?
Have you
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Hugo Mills wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 10:45:30AM +0100, Leonidas Spyropoulos wrote:
>> Why the official repository is not updated with the latest patched for gcc
>> 4.6?
>> I noticed that http://git.darksatanic.net/repo/btrfs-progs-unstable.git/
>> includes
Hallo,
you should please add a hint in
.../git/mason/btrfs-progs-unstable.git
in the file "INSTALL" with at least the contents (please excuse my
gerlish)
"btrfs" needs the device "btrfs-control". Perhaps you have to create it:
mknod /dev/btrfs-control c 10 234
Viele Gruesse!
Helm
On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 10:45:30AM +0100, Leonidas Spyropoulos wrote:
> Why the official repository is not updated with the latest patched for gcc
> 4.6?
> I noticed that http://git.darksatanic.net/repo/btrfs-progs-unstable.git/
> includes more patches than the
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux
Hello,
Why the official repository is not updated with the latest patched for gcc 4.6?
I noticed that http://git.darksatanic.net/repo/btrfs-progs-unstable.git/
includes more patches than the
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/btrfs-progs-unstable.git
So I was wondering is it some
32 matches
Mail list logo
