On 02/11/2013 05:08 AM, David Sterba wrote:
On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 11:21:16AM -0800, Blair Zajac wrote:
Running an Ubuntu Raring VM which was built a week ago that is now running
3.8-rc6, I was booting it last night when it hung. After a few forced
reboots, it came back up and I found the
On 02/20/2013 08:19 PM, Alex Elsayed wrote:
Matias Bjorling wrote:
Here is a short proposal for the hybrid storage cache idea with
introduction/motivation and a bird's eye view of an approach to implement
a hybrid storage cache for btrfs. Please note that there is currently no
available
When running the 083th case of xfstests on the filesystem with
compress-force=lzo, the following WARNINGs were triggered.
WARNING: at fs/btrfs/inode.c:7908
WARNING: at fs/btrfs/inode.c:7909
WARNING: at fs/btrfs/inode.c:7911
WARNING: at fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:4510
WARNING: at
hi,
On wed, 20 Feb 2013 23:35:36 -0600, Mitch Harder wrote:
I'm getting a series of kernel WARNING messages when testing Josef's
btrfs-next and Chris' next branch running xfstests 083 when mounted
with compress-force=lzo.
I'm not seeing any other indications of problems other than the
From: Wang Shilong wangsl-f...@cn.fujitsu.com
Steps to reproduce:
btrfs qgroup limit m mnt/subv
Here, unit(k/K/g/G/m/M/t/T) all will trigger the problem.
For the above command, the original code will parse the limit value as 0
and return successfully.It is wrong,fix it.
Signed-off-by:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 02:48:22AM -0700, Miao Xie wrote:
When running the 083th case of xfstests on the filesystem with
compress-force=lzo, the following WARNINGs were triggered.
WARNING: at fs/btrfs/inode.c:7908
WARNING: at fs/btrfs/inode.c:7909
WARNING: at fs/btrfs/inode.c:7911
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 04:56:04PM +0900, Kyungsik Lee wrote:
@@ -55,8 +55,9 @@ static struct list_head *lzo_alloc_workspace(void)
return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
workspace-mem = vmalloc(LZO1X_MEM_COMPRESS);
- workspace-buf = vmalloc(PAGE_CACHE_SIZE);
- workspace-cbuf
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 7:26 AM, Chris Mason chris.ma...@fusionio.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 02:48:22AM -0700, Miao Xie wrote:
When running the 083th case of xfstests on the filesystem with
compress-force=lzo, the following WARNINGs were triggered.
WARNING: at fs/btrfs/inode.c:7908
Hi folks,
I'm using Ubuntu 12.10 Quantal with
# uname -r
3.5.0-24-generic
And it seems I cannot defrag :
# filefrag /boot/initrd.img-3.5.0-24-generic
/boot/initrd.img-3.5.0-24-generic: 3 extents found
# btrfs filesystem defrag /boot/initrd.img-3.5.0-24-generic
# echo $?
20
# filefrag
Le 21/02/2013 16:01, Hugo Mills a écrit :
That's a success. The return code for defrag is broken, and for some
reason returns 20 on success.
Thanks for the quick reply Hugo. So should I script that for now and
the future, $? 20 = OK ?
This is pretty good. You can't guarantee that any given
Hi Josef,
Please remove the following patch:
Btrfs: move fs/btrfs/ioctl.h to include/uapi/linux/btrfs.h
(55e301fd57a6239ec14b91a1cf2e70b3dd135194 in your btrfs-next.git)
It's not fully cooked and I'm working on a second version of the patch
that will do a little more rearranging of the header
When a subvolume is removed, we remove the root item from the root tree,
while the tree blocks and backrefs remain for a while. When backref walking
comes across one of those orphan tree blocks, it can find a backref for a
no longer existing root. This is all good, we only must tolerate
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 08:20:37AM -0700, Filipe Brandenburger wrote:
Hi Josef,
Please remove the following patch:
Btrfs: move fs/btrfs/ioctl.h to include/uapi/linux/btrfs.h
(55e301fd57a6239ec14b91a1cf2e70b3dd135194 in your btrfs-next.git)
It's not fully cooked and I'm working on a
Hi again,
Having numerous snapshots, I prefer to ask rather than take the risk of
exploding my storage space, better safe than sorry ;-)
man btrfs states :
« NOTE: defragmenting with kernels up to 2.6.37 will unlink COW-ed
copies of data, don't use it if you use snapshots, have
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 04:46:14PM +0100, Swâmi Petaramesh wrote:
Hi again,
Having numerous snapshots, I prefer to ask rather than take the risk of
exploding my storage space, better safe than sorry ;-)
man btrfs states :
« NOTE: defragmenting with kernels up to 2.6.37 will unlink
On Thu, 2013-02-21 at 16:46 +0100, Swâmi Petaramesh wrote:
Hi again,
Having numerous snapshots, I prefer to ask rather than take the risk of
exploding my storage space, better safe than sorry ;-)
man btrfs states :
« NOTE: defragmenting with kernels up to 2.6.37 will unlink COW-ed
Le 21/02/2013 16:50, Liu Bo a écrit :
Well, there is already a patch which addresses your concern and it's
'snapshot-aware defrag' feature and now in v6, it's not merged yet.
thanks, liubo
Hi Liu,
So should I understand that, even though the manpage states that the
issue is for kernels =
Le 21/02/2013 16:54, Calvin Walton a écrit :
You really should upgrade your kernel, however. 3.5.0 is rather old in
btrfs-years! Lots of fixes have gone into newer kernels.
Hi Calvin,
I expect Ubuntu 13.04 to come with kernel 3.7 in April. Having Ubuntu
kernel upgrades every 6 months (and
On 02/21/2013 08:01 AM, Swâmi Petaramesh wrote:
Le 21/02/2013 16:54, Calvin Walton a écrit :
You really should upgrade your kernel, however. 3.5.0 is rather old in
btrfs-years! Lots of fixes have gone into newer kernels.
Hi Calvin,
I expect Ubuntu 13.04 to come with kernel 3.7 in April.
On 2/21/13 9:10 AM, Swâmi Petaramesh wrote:
Le 21/02/2013 16:01, Hugo Mills a écrit :
That's a success. The return code for defrag is broken, and for some
reason returns 20 on success.
Thanks for the quick reply Hugo. So should I script that for now and
the future, $? 20 = OK ?
Heh:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 05:01:30PM +0100, Swâmi Petaramesh wrote:
Le 21/02/2013 16:54, Calvin Walton a écrit :
You really should upgrade your kernel, however. 3.5.0 is rather old in
btrfs-years! Lots of fixes have gone into newer kernels.
Hi Calvin,
I expect Ubuntu 13.04 to come with
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 10:10:57AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 2/21/13 9:10 AM, Swâmi Petaramesh wrote:
Le 21/02/2013 16:01, Hugo Mills a écrit :
That's a success. The return code for defrag is broken, and for some
reason returns 20 on success.
Thanks for the quick reply Hugo. So
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 06:03:17PM +0100, Swâmi Petaramesh wrote:
Le 21/02/2013 17:38, Hugo Mills a écrit :
Plus, if something does go wrong with your FS, and you're running an
older kernel, you'll get limited amounts of sympathy, because quite a
lot of the problems people encounter with
Le 21/02/2013 17:38, Hugo Mills a écrit :
Plus, if something does go wrong with your FS, and you're running an
older kernel, you'll get limited amounts of sympathy, because quite a
lot of the problems people encounter with older kernels have already
been fixed in newer ones.
The matter, as
Thanks a lot for the prompt response. I had seen that, but I am still
not sure of where it really
happens within fill_delalloc. Could you help me a little further in that path?
Secondly, now I am confused between the btree_writepages and
btrfs_writepages/btrfs_writepage
methods. I thought
Le 21/02/2013 18:25, Hugo Mills a écrit :
Correct. But btrfs isn't at that stage yet. It's getting visibly
closer, but it's not quite there. Hence the very strong recommendation
to keep up with the latest code. Hugo.
The matter is that BTRFS had many early adopters just because it is -
and
Hi Chris,
my comments below
On 02/20/2013 10:32 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
Hi everyone,
This spot in the chunk allocation code has seen a lot of little tweaks,
so I wanted to send this patch out for more eyes.
--
We try to limit the size of a chunk to 10GB, which keeps the unit of
work
Am Donnerstag, 21. Februar 2013 schrieb Swâmi Petaramesh:
Hi folks,
I'm using Ubuntu 12.10 Quantal with
# uname -r
3.5.0-24-generic
And it seems I cannot defrag :
# filefrag /boot/initrd.img-3.5.0-24-generic
/boot/initrd.img-3.5.0-24-generic: 3 extents found
# btrfs filesystem
A user reported hitting the BUG_ON() in btrfs_finished_ordered_io() where we had
csums on a NOCOW extent. This can happen if we have NODATACOW set but not
NODATASUM set, which can happen in two cases, either we mount with -o nodatacow
and then write into preallocated space, or chattr +C a
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 06:47:28PM +0100, Swâmi Petaramesh wrote:
Le 21/02/2013 18:25, Hugo Mills a écrit :
Correct. But btrfs isn't at that stage yet. It's getting visibly
closer, but it's not quite there. Hence the very strong recommendation
to keep up with the latest code. Hugo.
The
On 02/21/2013 06:47 PM, Swâmi Petaramesh wrote:
Le 21/02/2013 18:25, Hugo Mills a écrit :
Correct. But btrfs isn't at that stage yet. It's getting visibly
closer, but it's not quite there. Hence the very strong recommendation
to keep up with the latest code. Hugo.
The matter is that BTRFS
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 18:47:28 +0100
Swâmi Petaramesh sw...@petaramesh.org wrote:
Le 21/02/2013 18:25, Hugo Mills a écrit :
Correct. But btrfs isn't at that stage yet. It's getting visibly
closer, but it's not quite there. Hence the very strong
recommendation to keep up with the latest code.
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 09:58:16PM +0100, Bardur Arantsson wrote:
On 02/21/2013 06:47 PM, Swâmi Petaramesh wrote:
Le 21/02/2013 18:25, Hugo Mills a écrit :
Correct. But btrfs isn't at that stage yet. It's getting visibly
closer, but it's not quite there. Hence the very strong recommendation
On Feb 21, 2013, Alexandre Oliva ol...@gnu.org wrote:
What I saw in that function also happens to explain why in some cases I
see filesystems allocate a huge number of chunks that remain unused
(leading to the scenario above, of not having more chunks to allocate).
It happens for data and
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 03:34:15PM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
A user reported hitting the BUG_ON() in btrfs_finished_ordered_io() where we
had
csums on a NOCOW extent. This can happen if we have NODATACOW set but not
NODATASUM set, which can happen in two cases, either we mount with -o
While inserting dir index and updating inode for a snapshot, we'd
add delayed items which consume trans-block_rsv, if we don't have
any space reserved in this trans handle, we either just return or
reserve space again.
But before creating pending snapshots during committing transaction,
we've
Signed-off-by: Hemanth Kumar hemanthkuma...@gmail.com
---
298 | 37 +
298.out | 12
2 files changed, 49 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 298
create mode 100644 298.out
diff --git a/298 b/298
new file mode 100644
index 000..d699fb7
---
On 02/21/2013 10:56 PM, David Sterba wrote:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 09:58:16PM +0100, Bardur Arantsson wrote:
On 02/21/2013 06:47 PM, Swâmi Petaramesh wrote:
Le 21/02/2013 18:25, Hugo Mills a écrit :
Correct. But btrfs isn't at that stage yet. It's getting visibly
closer, but it's not quite
Signed-off-by: Hemanth Kumar hemanthkuma...@gmail.com
---
299 | 38 ++
299.out | 20
2 files changed, 58 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 299
create mode 100644 299.out
diff --git a/299 b/299
new file mode 100644
index
On 02/22/13 07:12, Hemanth Kumar wrote:
Signed-off-by: Hemanth Kumar hemanthkuma...@gmail.com
---
299 | 38 ++
299.out | 20
2 files changed, 58 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 299
create mode 100644 299.out
diff --git
A trivial fix, corrects the indentation.
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain anand.j...@oracle.com
---
utils.c | 13 +++--
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/utils.c b/utils.c
index d660507..9c2e510 100644
--- a/utils.c
+++ b/utils.c
@@ -1192,12 +1192,13 @@ scan_again:
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:49:20AM -0500, Marios Titas wrote:
Try this:
touch test
chattr +C test
lsattr test
mv test test2
lsattr test2
The original file (test) will have the C flag but when renamed the
flag disappears. If the volume is unmounted and then mounted
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 01:34:26AM -0500, Marios Titas wrote:
A few weeks ago I reported a similar bug [1]. It has to do with file
renaming. Do you think that it is related? This patch doesn't seem to
help.
Yes, they're related, and I sent you a patch in [1] thread, could you check it?
43 matches
Mail list logo
