On tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:30:51 +0800, Liu Bo wrote:
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 11:13:25PM -0800, cli...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
From: Wade Cline cli...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
v1 - v2:
- Added Signed-off-by tag (it's kind of important).
This patch is only an RFC. My internship is ending and I was
On 2012/12/17 06:23 PM, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 04:51:33PM +0100, Sebastien Luttringer wrote:
Hello,
snip
I get the feeling that RAID1 only allow one disk removing. Which is more
a RAID5 feature.
The RAID-1 support in btrfs makes exactly two copies of each item
of data,
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 01:20:20PM +0200, Brendan Hide wrote:
On 2012/12/17 06:23 PM, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 04:51:33PM +0100, Sebastien Luttringer wrote:
Hello,
snip
I get the feeling that RAID1 only allow one disk removing. Which is more
a RAID5 feature.
The RAID-1
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 12:24:53AM -0700, Miao Xie wrote:
Onfri, 14 Dec 2012 12:51:06 -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 02:28:13AM -0700, Miao Xie wrote:
If we remount the fs to close the auto defragment or make the fs R/O, we
should
stop the auto defragment.
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 03:04:08PM -0700, Jan Steffens wrote:
After a lockup requiring a hard reset, the btrfs could not be mounted,
throwing the following error:
Could you tell me what line this comes out to? Give me a few lines of context
so I can figure out where it's happening. Thanks,
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 06:52:37PM -0700, Liu Bo wrote:
An user reported that he has hit an annoying deadlock while playing with
ceph based on btrfs.
Current updating device tree requires space from METADATA chunk,
so we -may- need to do a recursive chunk allocation when adding/updating
dev
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 09:24:23PM -0700, Atri Sharma wrote:
Hi All,
I was looking through the project ideas page for picking up a project
do start working with BTRFS. I am really interested in Btree lock
contention project, but it seems to be marked that it has already been
done in v3.1
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 02:19:46PM -0700, Tóth Csaba wrote:
Dear Community,
i have a linux server with a btrfs root filesystem. After some time, or
a specific action (i don't know what exactly) it crashes. Sometimes it
needs some day, sometimes when i make a concrete action, like subvolume
Thanks.
I shall mark it as in progress then.
For writer's contention, I was thinking of decreasing the lock
granularity. I have not really thought about it deeply yet, but my
initial plans are to identify areas where we can distribute the locks,
and maybe use techniques such as combining trees.
Hello all,
sorry for a user-level question,
I have a board based on PLX7821 aka OX820 ARM SoC. It is not supported in the
mainline kernel; the vendor supplied the source of the kernel 2.6.31 with
necessary updates for this platform, and it works. I understand that there have
been no successful
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Atri Sharma atri.j...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks.
I shall mark it as in progress then.
For writer's contention, I was thinking of decreasing the lock
granularity. I have not really thought about it deeply yet, but my
initial plans are to identify areas where we
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Josef Bacik jba...@fusionio.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 03:04:08PM -0700, Jan Steffens wrote:
After a lockup requiring a hard reset, the btrfs could not be mounted,
throwing the following error:
Could you tell me what line this comes out to? Give me a
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 06:11:55PM +0400, Eugene Crosser wrote:
I have a board based on PLX7821 aka OX820 ARM SoC. It is not
supported in the mainline kernel; the vendor supplied the source of
the kernel 2.6.31 with necessary updates for this platform, and it
works. I understand that there
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 02:35:21PM +, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 06:11:55PM +0400, Eugene Crosser wrote:
I have a board based on PLX7821 aka OX820 ARM SoC. It is not
Oh, I forgot to mention -- there's some problems with the btrfs
userspace tools on ARM, related to
Thanks Hugo!
The idea to bring the hardware support forward to the current kernel was my
first thing to check. It seems that a few people (more experienced than myself)
tried this and could not make it work reliably. Tweaking btrfs in 2.6.31 was my
plan B. Now it looks like both endeavours are
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 07:47:51AM -0700, Liu Bo wrote:
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 08:52:42AM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 06:52:37PM -0700, Liu Bo wrote:
An user reported that he has hit an annoying deadlock while playing with
ceph based on btrfs.
Current
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 7:06 AM, Sylvain Alain d2racing...@gmail.com wrote:
So, if I don't use the discard command, how often do I need to run the
fstrim command ?
If your ssd isn't a pile of crap, never. SSD's are always
over-provisioned, and so every time an erase block fills up, the drive
A user reported a BUG_ON(ret) that occured during tree log replay. Ret was
-EAGAIN, so what I think happened is that we removed an extent that covered
a bitmap entry and an extent entry. We remove the part from the bitmap and
return -EAGAIN and then search for the next piece we want to remove,
Hi Jeff,
On 12/18/2012 04:31 AM, Miao Xie wrote:
[...]
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c b/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
[...]
+static int btrfs_ioctl_set_fslabel(struct file *file, void __user *arg)
+{
+struct btrfs_root *root = BTRFS_I(fdentry(file)-d_inode)-root;
+struct btrfs_super_block
We still need to say we're flushing if we're limit flushing to keep somebody
from coming in and stealing our reservation. Thanks,
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik jba...@fusionio.com
---
fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git
We're deleting the stupid thing, no sense in updating the inode for the new
size. We're running into having 50-100 orphans left over with xfstests 83
because of ENOSPC when trying to start the transaction for the inode update.
This patch fixes this problem. Thanks,
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik
We still need to say we're flushing if we're limit flushing to keep somebody
from coming in and stealing our reservation. Thanks,
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik jba...@fusionio.com
---
fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git
Hi Mitch, hi all,
thanks for your hint.
I used btrfs-debug-tree now.
With -e, the output is empty. But without -e I do get a bit output file.
When I search for Filenames that I am missing, I get:
grep Sting big_output_file |grep Berlin
namelen 20 datalen 0 name:
On 12/18/2012 12:49 AM, Miao Xie wrote:
On tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:30:51 +0800, Liu Bo wrote:
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 11:13:25PM -0800, cli...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
From: Wade Clinecli...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
v1 - v2:
- Added Signed-off-by tag (it's kind of important).
This patch is only an
On 19/12/12 09:26, Wade Cline wrote:
Yeah. Basically, if we create a btrfs filesystem with a 4k blocksize
then that filesystem is incompatible with architectures such as PowerPC
and MIPS which have a page size larger than 4k.
What happens currently?Does the btrfs code detect the mismatch
On 12/18/2012 03:01 PM, Chris Samuel wrote:
On 19/12/12 09:26, Wade Cline wrote:
Yeah. Basically, if we create a btrfs filesystem with a 4k blocksize
then that filesystem is incompatible with architectures such as PowerPC
and MIPS which have a page size larger than 4k.
What happens
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 02:26:50PM -0800, Wade Cline wrote:
On 12/18/2012 12:49 AM, Miao Xie wrote:
On tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:30:51 +0800, Liu Bo wrote:
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 11:13:25PM -0800, cli...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
From: Wade Clinecli...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
v1 - v2:
- Added
On 12/18/2012 06:02 PM, Liu Bo wrote:
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 02:26:50PM -0800, Wade Cline wrote:
On 12/18/2012 12:49 AM, Miao Xie wrote:
On tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:30:51 +0800, Liu Bo wrote:
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 11:13:25PM -0800, cli...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
From: Wade
Hi Goffredo,
Thanks for your review.
On 12/19/2012 02:00 AM, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
Hi Jeff,
On 12/18/2012 04:31 AM, Miao Xie wrote:
[...]
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c b/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
[...]
+static int btrfs_ioctl_set_fslabel(struct file *file, void __user *arg)
+{
+ struct
The delayed item commit code in several functions is similar, so
cleanup it.
Signed-off-by: Miao Xie mi...@cn.fujitsu.com
---
fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c | 83 +---
1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c
We're running into having 50-100 orphans left over with xfstests 83
because of ENOSPC when trying to start the transaction for the inode update.
But in fact, it makes no sense in updating the inode for the new size while
we're deleting the stupid thing. This patch fixes this problem.
Reported-by:
Hi Jeff,
below my comments
Messaggio originale
Da: jeff@oracle.com
Data: 19/12/2012 4.42
A: kreij...@inwind.it
Cc: Goffredo Baroncellikreij...@gmail.com, mi...@cn.fujitsu.com, linux-
bt...@vger.kernel.org, anand.j...@oracle.com
Ogg: Re: [RFC PATCH V6 2/2] Btrfs: Add a new ioctl to
32 matches
Mail list logo
