A user reported some weird behaviours,
if we move a file with the noCow flag to a directory without the
noCow flag, the file is now without the flag, but after remount,
we'll find the file's noCow flag comes back.
This is because we missed a proper inode update after inheriting
parent directory's
Sorry, but the bug persists even with the above patch.
touch test
chattr +C test
lsattr test
mv test test2
lsattr test2
In the above scenario test2 will not have the C flag.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 3:11 AM, Liu Bo bo.li@oracle.com wrote:
A user reported some weird behaviours,
if we move a
On fri, 22 Feb 2013 12:33:36 +0800, Liu Bo wrote:
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
Wouldn't though inheriting create all sorts of problems? For instance
check the example that I give in my other responese [1].
[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org/msg22396.html
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 4:34 AM, Miao Xie mi...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
On fri, 22 Feb 2013
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 04:10:37AM -0500, Marios Titas wrote:
You are right, your patch does improve the situation a bit. But it
still does not address the main issue. To illustrate that, consider
the following scenario:
Sorry for so much confusion for users.
Please let me explain the
Am 20.02.2013, 02:14 Uhr, schrieb Liu Bo bo.li@oracle.com:
I think I know why inode_cache keeps us from freeing space, inode_cache
adds
a cache_inode in each btrfs root, and this cache_inode will be iput at
the very
last of stage during umount, ie. after we do cleanup work on old
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:16:22AM +0100, Norbert Scheibner wrote:
Am 20.02.2013, 02:14 Uhr, schrieb Liu Bo bo.li@oracle.com:
I think I know why inode_cache keeps us from freeing space,
inode_cache adds
a cache_inode in each btrfs root, and this cache_inode will be
iput at the very
From: Wang Shilong wangsl-f...@cn.fujitsu.com
This patch tries to stop users to create/destroy qgroup level 0,
users can only create/destroy qgroup level more than 0.
See the fact:
a subvolume/snapshot qgroup was created automatically
when creating subvolume/snapshot, so creating a
From: Wang Shilong wangsl-f...@cn.fujitsu.com
This patch tries to stop users to create/destroy qgroup level 0,
users can only create/destroy qgroup level more than 0.
See the fact:
a subvolume/snapshot qgroup was created automatically
when creating subvolume/snapshot, so creating a
On 02/22/13 13:02, Wang Shilong wrote:
From: Wang Shilong wangsl-f...@cn.fujitsu.com
Creating the root subvolume qgroup when enabling quota,with
Why only create a qgroup for the root subvolume and not for
every existing subvolume?
this patch,it will be ok to limit the whole filesystem size.
On 02/22/13 13:09, Wang Shilong wrote:
From: Wang Shilong wangsl-f...@cn.fujitsu.com
This patch tries to stop users to create/destroy qgroup level 0,
users can only create/destroy qgroup level more than 0.
See the fact:
a subvolume/snapshot qgroup was created automatically
when
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=906142
With 3.8 kernels in Fedora 18, using encfs on btrfs I get the
following error. It can take hours of use before I get a
reoccurrence, and I need to btrfsck, btrfs-zero-log, and/or mount with
'-o recovery' to get the filesystem back after a
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 06:15:49PM -0700, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
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
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 02:15:14PM -0700, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
I've experienced filesystem freezes with permanent spikes in the active
process count for quite a while, particularly on filesystems whose
available raw space has already been fully allocated to chunks.
While looking into this,
2013/2/22 Arne Jansen sensi...@gmx.net:
On 02/22/13 13:02, Wang Shilong wrote:
From: Wang Shilong wangsl-f...@cn.fujitsu.com
Creating the root subvolume qgroup when enabling quota,with
Why only create a qgroup for the root subvolume and not for
every existing subvolume?
Yes，You are right.
Hello,
2013/2/22 Arne Jansen sensi...@gmx.net:
On 02/22/13 13:09, Wang Shilong wrote:
From: Wang Shilong wangsl-f...@cn.fujitsu.com
This patch tries to stop users to create/destroy qgroup level 0,
users can only create/destroy qgroup level more than 0.
See the fact:
a
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 07:46:16AM -0700, Mace Moneta wrote:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=906142
With 3.8 kernels in Fedora 18, using encfs on btrfs I get the
following error. It can take hours of use before I get a
reoccurrence, and I need to btrfsck, btrfs-zero-log, and/or
I think I have a misconception of what copy on write in btrfs means for
individual files.
I had originally thought that I could create a large file:
time dd if=/dev/zero of=10G bs=1G count=10
10+0 records in
10+0 records out
10737418240 bytes (11 GB) copied, 100.071 s, 107 MB/s
real
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 09:11:28AM -0800, Mike Power wrote:
I think I have a misconception of what copy on write in btrfs means
for individual files.
I had originally thought that I could create a large file:
time dd if=/dev/zero of=10G bs=1G count=10
10+0 records in
10+0 records out
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Josef Bacik jba...@fusionio.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 07:46:16AM -0700, Mace Moneta wrote:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=906142
With 3.8 kernels in Fedora 18, using encfs on btrfs I get the
following error. It can take hours of use
Then if I copied this file no blocks would be copied until they are written.
Hence the two files would use the same blocks underneath. But specifically
that copy would be fast. Since it would only need to write some metadata.
But when I copy the file:
time cp 10G 10G2
cp without arguments
On 02/22/2013 09:16 AM, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 09:11:28AM -0800, Mike Power wrote:
I think I have a misconception of what copy on write in btrfs means
for individual files.
I had originally thought that I could create a large file:
time dd if=/dev/zero of=10G bs=1G count=10
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 10:22:04AM -0700, Mace Moneta wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Josef Bacik jba...@fusionio.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 07:46:16AM -0700, Mace Moneta wrote:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=906142
With 3.8 kernels in Fedora 18, using encfs
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Josef Bacik jba...@fusionio.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 10:22:04AM -0700, Mace Moneta wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Josef Bacik jba...@fusionio.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 07:46:16AM -0700, Mace Moneta wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 10:52:19AM -0700, Mace Moneta wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Josef Bacik jba...@fusionio.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 10:22:04AM -0700, Mace Moneta wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Josef Bacik jba...@fusionio.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Josef Bacik jba...@fusionio.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 10:52:19AM -0700, Mace Moneta wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Josef Bacik jba...@fusionio.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 10:22:04AM -0700, Mace Moneta wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Mace Moneta moneta.m...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Josef Bacik jba...@fusionio.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 10:52:19AM -0700, Mace Moneta wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Josef Bacik jba...@fusionio.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Mike Power dodts...@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/22/2013 09:16 AM, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 09:11:28AM -0800, Mike Power wrote:
I think I have a misconception of what copy on write in btrfs means
for individual files.
I had originally thought
Next, since previously we had btrfs on sdb and mkfs.ext4
does not overwrite super-block mirror 1.. so
btrfs_read_dev_super(int fd, struct btrfs_super_block *sb, u64
sb_bytenr)
finds btrfs on sdb.
btrfs-progs shouldn't be unconditionally trusting the backup superblocks
if the
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:31:07AM -0700, Mace Moneta wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Mace Moneta moneta.m...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Josef Bacik jba...@fusionio.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 10:52:19AM -0700, Mace Moneta wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 05:34:47PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
Onfri, 22 Feb 2013 16:40:35 +0800, Liu Bo wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 03:32:50AM -0500, Marios Titas wrote:
Sorry, but the bug persists even with the above patch.
touch test
chattr +C test
lsattr test
mv test test2
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 04:19:27PM -0500, Marios Titas wrote:
I think that many end users will find all this very confusing. They
will never expect that renaming a file will cause it to suddenly lose
one flag (NODATACOW) while preserving the other (NODATASUM).
Especially since they cannot
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:03:25AM -0800, Zach Brown wrote:
Next, since previously we had btrfs on sdb and mkfs.ext4
does not overwrite super-block mirror 1.. so
btrfs_read_dev_super(int fd, struct btrfs_super_block *sb, u64
sb_bytenr)
finds btrfs on sdb.
btrfs-progs
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 12:39:24AM +0800, Shilong Wang wrote:
Hello,
2013/2/22 Arne Jansen sensi...@gmx.net:
On 02/22/13 13:09, Wang Shilong wrote:
From: Wang Shilong wangsl-f...@cn.fujitsu.com
This patch tries to stop users to create/destroy qgroup level 0,
users can only
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 09:55:23PM +0200, Alex Lyakas wrote:
--- a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
@@ -1635,15 +1635,17 @@ static int cleaner_kthread(void *arg)
struct btrfs_root *root = arg;
do {
+ int again = 0;
+
if
On Mon, 18 Feb 2013, Stefan Behrens wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 22:56:19 +0100 (CET), Fredrik Tolf wrote:
The oops cut can be found here:
http://www.dolda2000.com/~fredrik/tmp/btrfs-oops
This scrub issue is fixed since Linux 3.8-rc1 with commit
4ded4f6 Btrfs: fix BUG() in scrub when first
Dear list,
I'm still in the process of transferring all the data I have to the btrfs
filesystem I have had your help in debugging in a previous thread, and I
have a slight question, if you will humour me.
I have the data I want to transfer on an old ReiserFS partition,
consisting of 2
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:24:04AM +0530, Hemanth Kumar wrote:
Signed-off-by: Hemanth Kumar hemanthkuma...@gmail.com
Description?
---
298 | 37 +
298.out | 12
2 files changed, 49 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 298
create mode
Hello, David
2013/2/23 David Sterba dste...@suse.cz:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 12:39:24AM +0800, Shilong Wang wrote:
Hello,
2013/2/22 Arne Jansen sensi...@gmx.net:
On 02/22/13 13:09, Wang Shilong wrote:
From: Wang Shilong wangsl-f...@cn.fujitsu.com
This patch tries to stop users to
39 matches
Mail list logo
