When I try to umount btrfs filesystem I get always this error with
kernel 3.11.4 and 3.11.3, but I can mount and umount without error on
kernel 3.11.2.
Exact error messages are:
BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 23s! [btrfs-transacti:680]
BUG: soft lockup - CPU#1 stuck for 23s! [umount:1575]
On 10/23/13 12:52 AM, David Sterba wrote:
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 09:21:47AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
Did you test these? Because they aren't working for me, so I think a revert is
the only solution. Thanks,
The impact of the failing test is imho not that big to justify a full
revert
btrfs replace on readonly fs should not be allowed.
Regression test case for commit:
bbb651e Btrfs: don't allow the replace procedure on read only filesystems
Signed-off-by: Eryu Guan eg...@redhat.com
---
tests/btrfs/020 | 84 +
On 10/23/13 12:52 AM, David Sterba wrote:
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 09:21:47AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
Did you test these? Because they aren't working for me, so I think a
revert is
the only solution. Thanks,
The impact of the failing test is imho not that big to justify a full
revert
Henry de Valence posted on Tue, 22 Oct 2013 23:58:33 -0400 as excerpted:
Second, I’m having some intermittent data corruption issues, and I’m not
really sure how to pin down the cause. Sometimes, I’ll get errors trying
to read a file due to a failed checksum, but when I run btrfs scrub, it
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Alex Lyakas
alex.bt...@zadarastorage.com wrote:
Hi Filipe,
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 2:52 AM, Filipe David Borba Manana
fdman...@gmail.com wrote:
This issue is simple to reproduce and observe if kmemleak is enabled.
Two simple ways to reproduce it:
** 1
$
Hello,
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Filipe David Manana fdman...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Alex Lyakas
alex.bt...@zadarastorage.com wrote:
Hi Filipe,
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 2:52 AM, Filipe David Borba Manana
fdman...@gmail.com wrote:
This issue is simple to
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Alex Lyakas
alex.bt...@zadarastorage.com wrote:
Hello,
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Filipe David Manana fdman...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Alex Lyakas
alex.bt...@zadarastorage.com wrote:
Hi Filipe,
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 2:52
On 22/10/13 19:17, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 06:58:48PM +0100, Martin wrote:
Dear list,
I've been trying to recover a 2TB single disk btrfs from a good few days
ago as already commented on the list. btrfsck complained of an error in
the extents and so I tried:
btrfsck
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 04:32:51PM +0100, Martin wrote:
On 22/10/13 19:17, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 06:58:48PM +0100, Martin wrote:
Dear list,
I've been trying to recover a 2TB single disk btrfs from a good few days
ago as already commented on the list. btrfsck
We were bug_on(slot == 0), but that's just obnoxious, return -ENOENT so we can
handle the situation properly. Thanks,
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik jba...@fusionio.com
---
root-tree.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/root-tree.c b/root-tree.c
index
On 10/23/13 6:24 AM, Eryu Guan wrote:
btrfs replace on readonly fs should not be allowed.
Regression test case for commit:
bbb651e Btrfs: don't allow the replace procedure on read only filesystems
Signed-off-by: Eryu Guan eg...@redhat.com
Could you speed this up by just truncating the
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:25:50AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 10/23/13 6:24 AM, Eryu Guan wrote:
btrfs replace on readonly fs should not be allowed.
Regression test case for commit:
bbb651e Btrfs: don't allow the replace procedure on read only filesystems
Signed-off-by: Eryu Guan
btrfs replace on readonly fs should not be allowed.
Regression test case for commit:
bbb651e Btrfs: don't allow the replace procedure on read only filesystems
Signed-off-by: Eryu Guan eg...@redhat.com
---
v2: Address Eric's review
- use truncate to create fs image instead of writing to each
New option to subvolume list that acts as a global filter and applies
the other filters to either live subvolumes or the uncleaned ones.
The path to the deleted subvolumes is lost at the deletion time, sample
output looks like:
ID 259 gen 7 top level 0 path FS_TREE/DELETED
Signed-off-by: David
On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 00:44:43 +0800, Eryu Guan wrote:
btrfs replace on readonly fs should not be allowed.
Regression test case for commit:
bbb651e Btrfs: don't allow the replace procedure on read only filesystems
Signed-off-by: Eryu Guan eg...@redhat.com
---
v2: Address Eric's review
-
On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 18:55:59 +0200, Bob Marley wrote:
On 22/10/2013 10:37, Stefan Behrens wrote:
I don't believe that this issue can ever happen. I don't believe that
somewhere on the path to the flash memory, to the magnetic disc or to
the drive's cache memory, someone interrupts a 4KB write
On 10/23/13 12:05 PM, Stefan Behrens wrote:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 00:44:43 +0800, Eryu Guan wrote:
btrfs replace on readonly fs should not be allowed.
Regression test case for commit:
bbb651e Btrfs: don't allow the replace procedure on read only filesystems
Signed-off-by: Eryu Guan
On 10/23/13 11:44 AM, Eryu Guan wrote:
btrfs replace on readonly fs should not be allowed.
Regression test case for commit:
bbb651e Btrfs: don't allow the replace procedure on read only filesystems
Signed-off-by: Eryu Guan eg...@redhat.com
Reviewed-by: Eric Sandeen sand...@redhat.com
On 23/10/13 17:21, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 04:32:51PM +0100, Martin wrote:
Any further debug useful?
Nope I know where it's breaking, I need to fix how we init the extent tree.
Thanks,
Good stuff.
If of help, I can test new code or a patch for that example. (I'll
Hi,
I have an Intel Core i7 based fileserver with 18TB BTRFS in a 6x
3TB RAID 1+0 configuration. The system was working fine running Ubuntu
13.04 (kernel 3.11.0-12-generic). The system was upgraded to Ubuntu
13.10 (kernel 3.11) and began to lock up daily, sometimes every couple
of hours.
Sean Clarke posted on Wed, 23 Oct 2013 20:26:15 +0100 as excerpted:
I have looked in bugzilla and can't relate this to anything already
reported, has anyone seen something similar to this?
I don't do NFS so didn't pay attention to the details, but look here on-
list as IIRC there was a very
In some cases the tree root is so hosed we can't get anything useful out of it.
So add the -b option to btrfsck to make us look for the most recent backup tree
root to use for repair. Then we can hopefully get ourselves into a working
state. Thanks,
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik
I was hit by this when trying to rebalance a 16TB RAID10 to 32TB
RAID10 going from 4 to 8 WD SE 4TB drives today. I cannot finish a
rebalance because of failed csum.
[10228.850910] BTRFS info (device sdq): csum failed ino 487 off 65536
csum 2566472073 private 151366068
[10228.850967] BTRFS info
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 12:45:07PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 10/23/13 12:05 PM, Stefan Behrens wrote:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 00:44:43 +0800, Eryu Guan wrote:
+# real QA test starts here
+_supported_fs btrfs
+_supported_os Linux
It is still unclear to me why everybody adds this
OK. btrfs scrub and dmesg is hitting me with lots of unfixable errors.
All in the same file. Example
[13313.441091] btrfs: unable to fixup (regular) error at logical
560107954176 on dev /dev/sdn
[13321.532223] scrub_handle_errored_block: 1510 callbacks suppressed
[13321.532309]
Hi,
I have a btrfs filesystem on a USB stick. A few days ago, my cell phone was
right next to the stick while both (teh stick and the phone) were in use. I
suppose the irradiation from the phone must have interacted badly with the
stick. The syslog showed some messages from the btrfs modules
This has been committed.
Thanks
--Rich
commit 5b8e9ac03259a11de8fd84d939f25a2cbbafab18
Author: Eryu Guan eg...@redhat.com
Date: Wed Oct 23 16:44:43 2013 +
xfstests btrfs/020: test device replace on RO btrfs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
28 matches
Mail list logo
