On Monday 23 of April 2012 13:53:57 Ken D'Ambrosio wrote:
I know this question was asked, oh, a year ago, and the answer was
No. But I'm wondering if anything's changed in the interim.
Specifically, shy of dd, is there any way to back up the files and
metadata on a btrfs partition?
btrfs
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 07:29:45PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 03:06:41PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
We already do the btrfs_wait_ordered_range which will do this for us, so
just remove this call so we don't call it twice. Thanks,
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 01:11:40PM +0800, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
I was seeing root_list corruption on unmount during fs resize in 3.4-rc4; add
correct locking to address this.
Signed-off-by: Daniel J Blueman dan...@quora.org
---
fs/btrfs/relocation.c |2 ++
1 file changed, 2
may_commit_transaction() calls
spin_lock(space_info-lock);
spin_lock(delayed_rsv-lock);
and update_global_block_rsv() calls
spin_lock(block_rsv-lock);
spin_lock(sinfo-lock);
Lockdep complains about this at run time.
Everywhere except in update_global_block_rsv(),
Hi,
yesterday i tried mkfs.btrfs on my embedded arm system without success (git
clone from 2012-04-24).
I got always this error message (this bug where already mentioned some month
ago)
mkfs.btrfs /dev/sda1
WARNING!
Hi,
yesterday i tried mkfs.btrfs on my embedded arm system without success (git
clone from 2012-04-24).
I got always this error message (this bug where already mentioned some month
ago)
mkfs.btrfs /dev/sda1
WARNING!
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 09:50:39AM +0800, Liu Bo wrote:
On 04/24/2012 01:33 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
We can deadlock waiting for pages to end writeback because we are doing an
allocation while hold a tree lock since the ordered extent stuff will
require tree locks. A quick easy way to fix
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 09:14:47AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 07:29:45PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 03:06:41PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
We already do the btrfs_wait_ordered_range which will do this for us, so
just remove this call so we don't
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:09:34PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
After running ceph on XFS for some time, I decided to try btrfs again.
Performance with the current for-linux-min branch and big metadata
is much better. The only problem (?) I'm still seeing is a warning
that seems to occur
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 02:53:55PM +0200, Thomas Weber wrote:
Hello,
today my laptop crashed with the following output. Installed is
Archlinux with btrfs on a SSD.
Is it btrfs related?
Sort of an old kernel, can you try on something recent? It doesn't look
familiar but who knows. Thanks,
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 11:03:06PM -0400, Jeremy Atkins wrote:
Back story:
I started my pool with a 200gb partition at the end of my drive (sdc5)
, until I was able to clear out the data at the beginning of my drive.
When I was ready, I ran `btrfs dev add /dev/sdc4 /` then `btrfs dev
del
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:31:15AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 11:03:06PM -0400, Jeremy Atkins wrote:
Back story:
I started my pool with a 200gb partition at the end of my drive (sdc5)
, until I was able to clear out the data at the beginning of my drive.
When I was
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 06:39:03PM +0300, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:31:15AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 11:03:06PM -0400, Jeremy Atkins wrote:
Back story:
I started my pool with a 200gb partition at the end of my drive (sdc5)
, until I was
Hello Josef,
On 04/24/2012 05:26 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 02:53:55PM +0200, Thomas Weber wrote:
Hello,
today my laptop crashed with the following output. Installed is
Archlinux with btrfs on a SSD.
Is it btrfs related?
Sort of an old kernel, can you try on something
With 3.4-rc4 under certain workloads, I see btrfs_block_rsv_check
return -ENOSPC.
Since btrfs_block_rsv_check can only return -ENOSPC or 0,
relocation.c:3816 checks for -EAGAIN, which is either redundant or
should be -ENOSPC, which I initially suspected.
Let me know which the behaviour should be
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 04:02:09PM +0200, Stefan Behrens wrote:
may_commit_transaction() calls
spin_lock(space_info-lock);
spin_lock(delayed_rsv-lock);
and update_global_block_rsv() calls
spin_lock(block_rsv-lock);
spin_lock(sinfo-lock);
Lockdep complains
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:50:24PM +0800, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
With 3.4-rc4 under certain workloads, I see btrfs_block_rsv_check
return -ENOSPC.
Since btrfs_block_rsv_check can only return -ENOSPC or 0,
relocation.c:3816 checks for -EAGAIN, which is either redundant or
should be -ENOSPC,
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:42:26AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 06:39:03PM +0300, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:31:15AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 11:03:06PM -0400, Jeremy Atkins wrote:
Back story:
I started my pool with a
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:42:26AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 06:39:03PM +0300, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:31:15AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 11:03:06PM -0400, Jeremy Atkins wrote:
Back story:
I started my pool with a
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:09:34PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
After running ceph on XFS for some time, I decided to try btrfs again.
Performance with the current for-linux-min branch and big metadata
is much better. The only problem (?) I'm still
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 08:26:44PM +0300, Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
From: Sergei Trofimovich sly...@gentoo.org
Changing 'mount -oremount,thread_pool=2 /' didn't make any effect:
maximum amount of worker threads is specified in 2 places:
- in 'strict btrfs_fs_info::thread_pool_size'
- in
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 09:26:15AM -0700, Sage Weil wrote:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:09:34PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
After running ceph on XFS for some time, I decided to try btrfs again.
Performance with the current for-linux-min branch
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 01:33:44PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 09:26:15AM -0700, Sage Weil wrote:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:09:34PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
After running ceph on XFS for some time, I decided to try
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 13:32:37 -0400
Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 08:26:44PM +0300, Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
From: Sergei Trofimovich sly...@gentoo.org
Changing 'mount -oremount,thread_pool=2 /' didn't make any effect:
maximum amount of worker threads is
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 09:11:15PM +0300, Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 13:32:37 -0400
Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 08:26:44PM +0300, Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
From: Sergei Trofimovich sly...@gentoo.org
Changing 'mount
Hi Jan,
I was giving a look to the function scrub_fs_info( ), and to me it seems
that could be a potential file handle leaking problem.
In fact:
static int scrub_fs_info(int fd, char *path,
struct btrfs_ioctl_fs_info_args *fi_args,
struct
From: Sergei Trofimovich sly...@gentoo.org
Changing 'mount -oremount,thread_pool=2 /' didn't make any effect:
maximum amount of worker threads is specified in 2 places:
- in 'strict btrfs_fs_info::thread_pool_size'
- in each worker struct: 'struct btrfs_workers::max_workers'
'mount -oremount'
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 10:59:16PM +0300, Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
From: Sergei Trofimovich sly...@gentoo.org
Changing 'mount -oremount,thread_pool=2 /' didn't make any effect:
maximum amount of worker threads is specified in 2 places:
- in 'strict btrfs_fs_info::thread_pool_size'
- in
Jan, firstly thanks very much for the thorough review! I wanted to make sure
I got the collision handling going before addressing the issues you found.
Again thanks, and my notes are below.
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 03:08:27PM +0200, Jan Schmidt wrote:
+/*
+ * Theoretical limit is larger, but
29 matches
Mail list logo
