Hallo, Miao,
Du meintest am 14.12.11:
When we use raid0 as the data profile, df command may show us a very
inaccurate value of the available space, which may be much less than
the real one. It may make the users puzzled. Fix it by changing the
calculation of the available space, and making
On wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:07:39 +0800, WuBo wrote:
On 12/14/2011 03:09 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 02:03:14PM -0500, Phillip Susi wrote:
On 12/13/2011 12:55 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
I've been hitting this BUG_ON() in btrfs_orphan_add when running xfstest
269 in
a loop.
Hi,
What is best practice when partitioning a device that holds one or
more btr-filesystems
Do it the old fashioned way, and create a number of partitions
according to your needs? Or create one big btrfs partition and use
subvolumes where you would normally create different partitions?
What are
Hallo, Wilfred,
Du meintest am 14.12.11:
What is best practice when partitioning a device that holds one or
more btr-filesystems
That depends ...
My favourite installation is a bundle of 2-TByte-disks which btrfs
presents as one big disk. data=raid0, metadata=raid1
It's a kind of archive,
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 05:46:37PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
Onwed, 14 Dec 2011 10:07:39 +0800, WuBo wrote:
On 12/14/2011 03:09 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 02:03:14PM -0500, Phillip Susi wrote:
On 12/13/2011 12:55 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
I've been hitting this BUG_ON()
On 12/14/2011 9:58 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
There is no underlying bug, there is a shitty situation, the shitty situation
Maybe my assumptions are wrong somewhere then. You add the orphan item
to make sure that the truncate will be finalized even if the system
crashes before the transaction
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:14:13AM -0500, Phillip Susi wrote:
On 12/14/2011 9:58 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
There is no underlying bug, there is a shitty situation, the shitty
situation
Maybe my assumptions are wrong somewhere then. You add the orphan
item to make sure that the truncate will
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:14:13AM -0500, Phillip Susi wrote:
On 12/14/2011 9:58 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
There is no underlying bug, there is a shitty situation, the shitty
situation
Maybe my assumptions are wrong somewhere then. You add the orphan
item to make sure that the truncate will
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:34:45AM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:14:13AM -0500, Phillip Susi wrote:
On 12/14/2011 9:58 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
There is no underlying bug, there is a shitty situation, the shitty
situation
Maybe my assumptions are wrong somewhere
On 12/14/2011 10:27 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
Except consider the case that the program was written intelligently and checks
for errors on truncate. So he writes 100G, truncates to 50M, and the truncate
fails and he closes the file and exits. Then somewhere down the road the inode
is evicted from
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:41:05AM -0500, Phillip Susi wrote:
On 12/14/2011 10:27 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
Except consider the case that the program was written intelligently and
checks
for errors on truncate. So he writes 100G, truncates to 50M, and the
truncate
fails and he closes the
2011/12/14 Wilfred van Velzen wvvel...@gmail.com:
Hi,
What is best practice when partitioning a device that holds one or
more btr-filesystems
Do it the old fashioned way, and create a number of partitions
according to your needs? Or create one big btrfs partition and use
subvolumes where
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:34:45AM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:14:13AM -0500, Phillip Susi wrote:
On 12/14/2011 9:58 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
There is no underlying bug, there is a shitty situation, the shitty
situation
Maybe my assumptions are wrong somewhere
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 11:45:24AM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:34:45AM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:14:13AM -0500, Phillip Susi wrote:
On 12/14/2011 9:58 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
There is no underlying bug, there is a shitty situation, the
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 03:15:53PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
Btrfsck report error 100 after the 83th case of xfstests was run, it means
the i_size of the file is wrong.
The reason of this bug is that:
Btrfs increased i_size of the file at the beginning, but it failed to expand
the file, and
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 7:21 PM, Mitch Harder
mitch.har...@sabayonlinux.org wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 7:00 AM, Wilfred van Velzen wvvel...@gmail.com
wrote:
What is best practice when partitioning a device that holds one or
more btr-filesystems
When it comes to best practices in btrfs
On 12/14/2011 10:46 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
file looks like its only 50m but still has 100g of extents taking up space
orphan cleanup happens and the inode is truncated and the extra space is cleaned
up
Yes, but isn't the only reason that the i_size change actually hit the
disk is because of
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 9:56 PM, Gareth Pye gar...@cerberos.id.au wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 5:51 AM, Wilfred van Velzen wvvel...@gmail.com
wrote:
(I'm not interested in what early adopter users do when they are using
rc kernels...)
Yet your going to use a FS without a working fsck?
Looks like it, cross posting to linux-btrfs.
-Sam
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 7:20 PM, Matt Weil mw...@genome.wustl.edu wrote:
another butter bug?
btrfs: open_ctree failed
[ cut here ]
WARNING: at fs/btrfs/inode.c:2194 btrfs_orphan_commit_root+0xb0/0xc0
[btrfs]()
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 4:42 AM, Wilfred van Velzen wvvel...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 9:56 PM, Gareth Pye gar...@cerberos.id.au wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 5:51 AM, Wilfred van Velzen wvvel...@gmail.com
wrote:
(I'm not interested in what early adopter users do when they are
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 01:12:14PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
Nov 28 00:11:14 karl-workstation kernel: [212918.235050] kernel BUG at
/home/apw/COD/linux/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:4775!
Nov 28 00:11:14 karl-workstation kernel: [212918.235118] RAX:
ea01 RBX: 880412c3ab40 RCX:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Wilfred van Velzen wvvel...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 9:56 PM, Gareth Pye gar...@cerberos.id.au wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 5:51 AM, Wilfred van Velzen wvvel...@gmail.com
wrote:
(I'm not interested in what early adopter users do when they are
On 12/15/2011 03:51 AM, Wilfred van Velzen wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 7:21 PM, Mitch Harder
mitch.har...@sabayonlinux.org wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 7:00 AM, Wilfred van Velzenwvvel...@gmail.com wrote:
What is best practice when partitioning a device that holds one or
more
On wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:34:45 -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:14:13AM -0500, Phillip Susi wrote:
On 12/14/2011 9:58 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
There is no underlying bug, there is a shitty situation, the shitty
situation
Maybe my assumptions are wrong somewhere then.
On 12/14/2011 10:58 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 05:46:37PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
On wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:07:39 +0800, WuBo wrote:
On 12/14/2011 03:09 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 02:03:14PM -0500, Phillip Susi wrote:
On 12/13/2011 12:55 PM, Josef Bacik
Hello,
I managed to mount my broken btrfs partition in read-only mode and clone my
rootfs subvolume to an ext4 partition and boot from that - so I now have the
original system bootable.
Jan Schmidt wrote:
On 07.12.2011 21:40, Kai Krakow wrote:
[...]
The problematic file seems to be in
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 11:51:47 -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 03:15:53PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
Btrfsck report error 100 after the 83th case of xfstests was run, it means
the i_size of the file is wrong.
The reason of this bug is that:
Btrfs increased i_size of the file at
27 matches
Mail list logo
