Re: btrfs oops (autodefrag related?)

2012-03-13 Thread Avi Kivity
On 03/13/2012 02:04 AM, Chris Mason wrote: On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 09:32:54PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: Because I'm such a btrfs fanboi I'm running btrfs on my /, all past experience notwithstanding. In an attempt to recover some performance, I enabled autodefrag, and got this in return:

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: convert refs and pages_reading to ints

2012-03-13 Thread Jan Schmidt
Hi Josef, On 09.03.2012 17:06, Josef Bacik wrote: I need to be able to safely deal with refs in my next patch, so convert refs and Did I miss your next patch? pages_reading to ints and introduce an eb_lock spinlock so I can use this to safely manipulate the refs count when marking eb's as

bcache with SSD instead of battery powered raid cards

2012-03-13 Thread Kiran Patil
Hi, Is anybody using bcache with SSD instead of battery powered raid cards with Btrfs ? Hard drives are cheap and big, SSDs are fast but small and expensive. Wouldn't it be nice if you could transparently get the advantages of both? With Bcache, you can have your cake and eat it too. Bcache is

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: convert refs and pages_reading to ints

2012-03-13 Thread Josef Bacik
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:51:04AM +0100, Jan Schmidt wrote: Hi Josef, On 09.03.2012 17:06, Josef Bacik wrote: I need to be able to safely deal with refs in my next patch, so convert refs and Did I miss your next patch? pages_reading to ints and introduce an eb_lock spinlock so I

[PATCH] Btrfs: introduce free_extent_buffer_stale

2012-03-13 Thread Josef Bacik
Because btrfs cow's we can end up with extent buffers that are no longer necessary just sitting around in memory. So instead of evicting these pages, we could end up evicting things we actually care about. Thus we have free_extent_buffer_stale for use when we are freeing tree blocks. This will

Re: kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/transaction.c:1337!

2012-03-13 Thread Anand Jain
These logs doesn't have the traces of the below BUG_ON(). stack as in the dmesg below has 'btrfs_congested_fn' which generally notifies block-device near Q full condition. we would need logs to confirm anything further. was there a kernel dump generated when BUG_ON was called? that should

Re: btrfs encryption problems

2012-03-13 Thread 810d4rk
I'm not having luck getting the encrypted btrfs back since the drive the drive was unplugged during a write operation, the experimental fsck with the repair option gives no valid btrfs found, mount gives this: sudo mount -t btrfs /dev/dm-1 /media/ mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock

Re: kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/transaction.c:1337!

2012-03-13 Thread qasdfgtyuiop
I'm sorry but I don't know how to get the kernel dump. It seems that the kernel dump is not enabled for my kernel: # CONFIG_CRASH_DUMP is not set On 3/13/12, Anand Jain anand.j...@oracle.com wrote: These logs doesn't have the traces of the below BUG_ON(). stack as in the dmesg below has

Re: NOCOW + compress-force = bug

2012-03-13 Thread Jeff Mahoney
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/16/2012 12:58 PM, Chris Mason wrote: On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 07:55:15PM +0600, Roman Mamedov wrote: Hello, Please be aware that there seems to be a possible problem with using NOCOW flag on files situated on a filesystem mounted with

Re: kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/transaction.c:1337!

2012-03-13 Thread qasdfgtyuiop
These information might be useful: $sudo btrfsck /home/not-a-user/broken-btrfs.img bad block 29933568 bad block 44224512 parent transid verify failed on 54566912 wanted 3532 found 3475 parent transid verify failed on 54566912 wanted 3532 found 3475 Extent back ref already exists for 40439808

Re: NOCOW + compress-force = bug

2012-03-13 Thread Jeff Mahoney
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/13/2012 02:11 PM, Jeff Mahoney wrote: On 02/16/2012 12:58 PM, Chris Mason wrote: On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 07:55:15PM +0600, Roman Mamedov wrote: Hello, Please be aware that there seems to be a possible problem with using NOCOW flag on

Re: getdents - ext4 vs btrfs performance

2012-03-13 Thread Phillip Susi
On 3/9/2012 11:48 PM, Ted Ts'o wrote: I suspect the best optimization for now is probably something like this: 1) Since the vast majority of directories are less than (say) 256k (this would be a tunable value), for directories which are less than this threshold size, the entire directory is

Re: getdents - ext4 vs btrfs performance

2012-03-13 Thread Ted Ts'o
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 03:05:59PM -0400, Phillip Susi wrote: Why not just separate the hash table from the conventional, mostly in inode order directory entries? For instance, the first 200k of the directory could be the normal entries that would tend to be in inode order ( and e2fsck -D

Re: getdents - ext4 vs btrfs performance

2012-03-13 Thread Phillip Susi
On 3/13/2012 3:53 PM, Ted Ts'o wrote: Because that would be a format change. I think a format change would be preferable to runtime sorting. What we have today is not a hash table; it's a hashed tree, where we use a fixed-length key for the tree based on the hash of the file name. Currently

[PATCH] Btrfs-progs: allow dup for data chunks in mixed mode

2012-03-13 Thread Ilya Dryomov
Before commit a46e7ff2 was merged it was possible to create dup for data+metadata chunks (mixed mode) by giving -m raid1 -d raid1 -M to mkfs. a46e7ff2 purposefully disabled behind the scenes profile upgrading/downgrading, so give users a chance to pick dup explicitly and bail if dup for data is

[PATCH] Btrfs-progs: make print-tree.c aware of free space cache

2012-03-13 Thread Ilya Dryomov
This adds proper formatting for free space and inode cache items in btrfs-debug-tree output. Signed-off-by: Ilya Dryomov idryo...@gmail.com --- ctree.h | 29 + print-tree.c | 52 +++- 2 files changed, 72

Re: getdents - ext4 vs btrfs performance

2012-03-13 Thread Ted Ts'o
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 04:22:52PM -0400, Phillip Susi wrote: I think a format change would be preferable to runtime sorting. Are you volunteering to spearhead the design and coding of such a thing? Run-time sorting is backwards compatible, and a heck of a lot easier to code and test... The

Re: getdents - ext4 vs btrfs performance

2012-03-13 Thread Yongqiang Yang
What if we use inode number as the hash value? Does it work? Yongqiang. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: getdents - ext4 vs btrfs performance

2012-03-13 Thread Ted Ts'o
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:48:17AM +0800, Yongqiang Yang wrote: What if we use inode number as the hash value? Does it work? The whole point of using the tree structure is to accelerate filename - inode number lookups. So the namei lookup doesn't have the inode number; the whole point is to

Re: kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/transaction.c:1337!

2012-03-13 Thread Anand Jain
$sudo btrfsck /home/not-a-user/broken-btrfs.img bad block 29933568 bad block 44224512 parent transid verify failed on 54566912 wanted 3532 found 3475 These aren't related to the original problem as in the subject. But it could be the panic's aftermath effect if IOs didn't made into the

[PATCH] btrfs/ctree.h: trivial fixup the comment for struct btrfs_dev_extent with the right fields' names

2012-03-13 Thread Wang Sheng-Hui
Signed-off-by: Wang Sheng-Hui shh...@gmail.com --- fs/btrfs/ctree.h |4 ++-- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ctree.h b/fs/btrfs/ctree.h index 80b6486..a515e4e 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/ctree.h +++ b/fs/btrfs/ctree.h @@ -597,9 +597,9 @@ struct