Le 08/10/2012 00:47, Goffredo Baroncelli a écrit :
Please could you clarify if you are using the autodefrag options
when you have the performance problem ?
I use autodefrag on all volumes systematically, except on volumes that I
use for really big files that would always be defragmenting (i.e.
Hi Martin,
Le 07/10/2012 16:48, Martin Steigerwald a écrit :
Where is this volume pool located on? On which drive(s)?
All the concerned machines are laptops with a single physical HD...
This could be 100 or more subvolumes / snapshots.
Maybe slowness could be related to this one.
That's a
Le 07/10/2012 16:44, Martin Steigerwald a écrit :
I think you need to backup, reformat and restore from backup for now.
No way. 4 machines on each of which 2 to 4 different OSes are sharing
the same BTRFS volume !
If I ever need to reformat/reinstall all this, the new format won't be
BTRFS ! I
2012/10/1 David Sterba d...@jikos.cz:
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 11:02:40AM +0800, Robin Dong wrote:
From: Robin Dong san...@taobao.com
Using mkfs.btrfs like:
mkfs.btrfs -b 1048576 /dev/sda
will report error:
mkfs.btrfs: volumes.c:796: btrfs_alloc_chunk: Assertion `!(ret)'
From: Robin Dong san...@taobao.com
Using mkfs.btrfs like:
mkfs.btrfs -l 131072 /dev/sda
will return no error, but after mount it, the dmesg will report:
BTRFS: couldn't mount because metadata blocksize (131072) was too large
The leafsize and nodesize are equal at present, so
From: Robin Dong san...@taobao.com
Using mkfs.btrfs like:
mkfs.btrfs -b 1048576 /dev/sda
will report error:
mkfs.btrfs: volumes.c:796: btrfs_alloc_chunk: Assertion `!(ret)' failed.
Aborted
because the length of dev_extent is 4MB.
For the single/single case it's 5MB
Hi Alex,
On Thu, October 04, 2012 at 17:59 (+0200), Alex Lyakas wrote:
as I promised, here is some code for you to look at.
And quite a lot of it. I hadn't thought of such a big change when I wrote
preferably in form of a patch.
As a side note, your patch doesn't follow the general kernel
From: Robin Dong san...@taobao.com
Using mkfs.btrfs like:
mkfs.btrfs -b 1048576 /dev/sda
will report error:
mkfs.btrfs: volumes.c:796: btrfs_alloc_chunk: Assertion `!(ret)' failed.
Aborted
because the length of dev_extent is 4MB.
For the single/single case it's 5MB
Hi,
please let us know what changed from v2 - v3. The usual place for such
comments is pointed below:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 04:10:40PM +0800, Robin Dong wrote:
[changelog ...]
Signed-off-by: Robin Dong san...@taobao.com
Reviewed-by: David Sterba d...@jikos.cz
---
here
ctree.h |6
Hi Jan,
thanks for taking time to look at the code.
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Jan Schmidt list.bt...@jan-o-sch.net wrote:
Hi Alex,
On Thu, October 04, 2012 at 17:59 (+0200), Alex Lyakas wrote:
as I promised, here is some code for you to look at.
And quite a lot of it. I hadn't
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Swâmi Petaramesh sw...@petaramesh.org wrote:
Le 08/10/2012 00:47, Goffredo Baroncelli a écrit :
Please could you clarify if you are using the autodefrag options
when you have the performance problem ?
I use autodefrag on all volumes systematically, except on
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 12:51 AM, Alex a...@bpmit.com wrote:
David Sterba dave at jikos.cz writes:
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 07, 2012 at 12:07:43PM +, Alex wrote:
The official wiki seems to have lost references to scrub if not other
commands.
Sorry, I felt sure that scrub was listed on
Hi all,
I tried without success to get a working Btrfs+quota setup.
I created a new Btrfs filesystem on a new
partition, then activated quota management ('btrfs quota enable'), and
created a few subvolumes.
I created a qgroup (with id 100) with 'btrfs qgroup create', and tried to
apply a quota on
On 10/03/2012 10:02 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 07:07:53PM -0600, Liu Bo wrote:
On 09/26/2012 01:39 AM, Mitch Harder wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 4:58 AM, Liu Bo bo.li@oracle.com wrote:
This comes from one of btrfs's project ideas,
As we defragment files, we break any
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 06:18:26AM -0600, Liu Bo wrote:
On 10/03/2012 10:02 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 07:07:53PM -0600, Liu Bo wrote:
On 09/26/2012 01:39 AM, Mitch Harder wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 4:58 AM, Liu Bo bo.li@oracle.com wrote:
This comes from one of
In csum_dirty_buffer, we first get eb from page-private.
Then we check if the page is the first page of eb. Later
we check it again. Remove the repeated check here.
Signed-off-by: Wang Sheng-Hui shh...@gmail.com
---
fs/btrfs/disk-io.c |8 +++-
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 5
Le 08/10/2012 13:38, Goffredo Baroncelli a écrit :
The autodefrag option is per filesystem not per subvolume. The settings
of the first subvolueme is used also for the other ones.
Uh !
So there is no interest in creating several subvols, some for which
files should be autodefragged, and some
On Mon, October 08, 2012 at 13:38 (+0200), Alex Lyakas wrote:
I realize this is a big change, and a new IOCTL has to be introduced
in order not to break current user-kernel protocol.
The pros as I see them:
# One data-copy is avoided (no pipe). For WRITE commands two
data-copies are avoided
I'm tracking this bug here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863978
Since approx. last week I'm seeing lots of failures in btrfs. The
common factor seems to be that the filesystem is created (mkfs.btrfs
/dev/sda1) and then it is immediately used -- eg. mounted or some
btrfs subtool
Hello everybody,
man pages for btrfs-progs are compressed by gzip by default. In Makefile the
variable GZIP is use, this evaluates to 'gzip gzip' on my system. From man
gzip:
The environment variable GZIP can hold a set of default options for gzip.
These options are interpreted first and can
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 08:16:42AM -0600, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
I'm tracking this bug here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863978
Since approx. last week I'm seeing lots of failures in btrfs. The
common factor seems to be that the filesystem is created (mkfs.btrfs
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 08:17:13AM -0600, Christian Hesse wrote:
Hello everybody,
man pages for btrfs-progs are compressed by gzip by default. In Makefile the
variable GZIP is use, this evaluates to 'gzip gzip' on my system. From man
gzip:
The environment variable GZIP can hold a set of
Chris Mason chris.ma...@fusionio.com on Mon, 2012/10/08 10:29:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 08:17:13AM -0600, Christian Hesse wrote:
Hello everybody,
man pages for btrfs-progs are compressed by gzip by default. In Makefile
the variable GZIP is use, this evaluates to 'gzip gzip' on my system.
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 08:30:31AM -0600, Christian Hesse wrote:
Chris Mason chris.ma...@fusionio.com on Mon, 2012/10/08 10:29:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 08:17:13AM -0600, Christian Hesse wrote:
Hello everybody,
man pages for btrfs-progs are compressed by gzip by default. In Makefile
Thanks for taking the time to write this up follow through the thread.
It's always interesting to hear situations where btrfs doesn't work
well.
There are three basic problems with the database workloads on btrfs.
First is that we have higher latencies on writes because we are feeding
Chris Mason chris.ma...@fusionio.com on Mon, 2012/10/08 10:33:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 08:30:31AM -0600, Christian Hesse wrote:
Chris Mason chris.ma...@fusionio.com on Mon, 2012/10/08 10:29:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 08:17:13AM -0600, Christian Hesse wrote:
Hello everybody,
man
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 10:27:57AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 08:16:42AM -0600, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
I'm tracking this bug here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863978
Since approx. last week I'm seeing lots of failures in btrfs. The
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 08:57:30AM -0600, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 10:27:57AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 08:16:42AM -0600, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
I'm tracking this bug here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863978
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 11:04:19AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 08:57:30AM -0600, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 10:27:57AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 08:16:42AM -0600, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
I'm tracking this bug
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 09:15:14AM -0600, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 11:04:19AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 08:57:30AM -0600, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 10:27:57AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at
Hi again Goffredo,
Le 08/10/2012 13:38, Goffredo Baroncelli a écrit :
I fear that both the combination of autodefrag and the high number of
snapshot could be the root-cause of the the bad performance.
I've removed, on one of my machines, all snapshots but three per subvol
(keeping the oldests
On Sun, Oct 07, 2012 at 03:26:32AM -0600, Swâmi Petaramesh wrote:
Hi,
I have 4 machines, all converted to BTRFS about 6 months ago, now all
running Ubuntu Quantal with kernel 3.5.0-17
The matter is that all these machines are now getting slower and slower
everyday, every disk access
Le 08/10/2012 18:09, Josef Bacik a écrit :
Can you get sysrq+w when you are seeing slowness? Usually bootup slow times
means you don't have space_cache enabled or your cache is being evicted for
some
reason, can you check dmesg after bootup for messages related to space cache?
Thanks,
I
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 10:15:51AM -0600, Swâmi Petaramesh wrote:
Le 08/10/2012 18:09, Josef Bacik a écrit :
Can you get sysrq+w when you are seeing slowness? Usually bootup slow times
means you don't have space_cache enabled or your cache is being evicted for
some
reason, can you check
On 10/08/2012 05:50 PM, Swâmi Petaramesh wrote:
Hi again Goffredo,
Le 08/10/2012 13:38, Goffredo Baroncelli a écrit :
I fear that both the combination of autodefrag and the high number of
snapshot could be the root-cause of the the bad performance.
I've removed, on one of my machines, all
I can send snapshots to volume, but not volume/dir. Please advise
if what I am doing is incorrect.
Rory
Format usb3 disk and mount
root@orchard:/bkp# mkfs.btrfs /dev/sdb1
WARNING! - Btrfs v0.20-rc1-37-g91d9eec IS EXPERIMENTAL
WARNING! - see http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org
I've run across two issues with the delayed cleaner process running a
kernel based on the 3.6.0 btrfs-next branch in Josef's git repository.
(1) I'm getting an error when trying to list my subvolumes whenever
the cleaner thread is running:
# btrfs su li /mnt/benchmark/
ERROR: Failed to lookup
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 06:42:27PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 04:15:14PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Unfortunately I'm struggling to reproduce this outside of our build
system (Koji). I will keep you informed if I do manage to reproduce
it locally. Adding
Hi,
I sent an earlier version of this patchset before, and didn't get any response,
so here is the next try:
This patch series implements some mainly cosmetic changes to.
btrfs-progs, most in btrfsck.
As this is my first contribution here, I'd kindly ask you for feedback,
and if work like this
This patch changes the output after checking a filesystem. Before, the
default output was found x bytes used err is 0, where the last integer
corresponds to the return value of check_root_refs(), which is either 1
or 0. Now this value is evaluated, and a message saying if errors were
found or not
Status reports of the checking process should be printed to stdout
instead of stderr, as that is normal program output and not related to
problems in btrfsck. This patch changes this behaviour and adds the
output Done! after each of the parts.
Signed-off-by: Dieter Ries m...@dieterries.net
---
In the first line of version.sh, $v was set to Btrfs vx.yy, and in
the end Btrfs $v was echoed to the version.h file. This resulted in
the version string Btrfs Btrfs vx.yy. This patch removes the second
occurrence of Btrfs.
Signed-off-by: Dieter Ries m...@dieterries.net
---
version.sh |2 +-
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Arne Jansen sensi...@gmx.net wrote:
Please refer here http://sensille.com/qgroups.pdf for a discussion of
the
meaning of those values.
Thanks, I already read your paper a few days ago, but it was a quick
reading in order to try to understand the concepts.
On 10/08/12 21:31, matthieu Barthélemy wrote:
Are there any plan to maybe get a better 'btrfs quota show' output?
Definitely. The first priority was to get the kernel part running, when
that is settled, we can improve the user mode part. There's also still
some work to do to make the tracking
On 10/08/12 18:30, Rory Campbell-Lange wrote:
I can send snapshots to volume, but not volume/dir. Please advise
if what I am doing is incorrect.
Rory
Format usb3 disk and mount
root@orchard:/bkp# mkfs.btrfs /dev/sdb1
WARNING! - Btrfs v0.20-rc1-37-g91d9eec IS EXPERIMENTAL
Hi,
On 09/10/2012, at 1:38 AM, Casper Bang casper.b...@gmail.com wrote:
If you do have a suspicion or insight on the matter (perhaps work for Oracle,
or
know OUK?), of course we'd love a followup offline this list.
I've sent an email to Casper to follow this up offline.
Thanks,
Avi
--
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 04:15:14PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 11:04:19AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 08:57:30AM -0600, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 10:27:57AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 03:22:30PM -0600, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
I have now reproduced this bug locally.
Adding sync() + fsync of each /dev/sd* device after the mkfs command
does appear to fix the problem.
However it's a little bit difficult to know for sure because I might
just be
On Tue, 2 Oct 2012 20:21:56 -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 04:14:37AM -0600, Miao Xie wrote:
From: Chen Yang chenyang.f...@cn.fujitsu.com
This patch adds the function to check correspondence between block group,
chunk and device extent.
Excellent, thank you. Could you
49 matches
Mail list logo
