On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 20:54:54 Adam Goryachev wrote:
On a pure storage server, the CPU would normally have nothing to do,
except a little interrupt handling, it is just shuffling bytes around.
Of course, if you need RAID7.5 then you probably have a dedicated
storage server, so I don't see the
Hi David,
On 11/21/2013 3:07 AM, David Brown wrote:
On 21/11/13 02:28, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
...
WRT rebuild times, once drives hit 20TB we're looking at 18 hours just
to mirror a drive at full streaming bandwidth, assuming 300MB/s
average--and that is probably being kind to the drive makers.
On 11/21/2013 3:07 AM, David Brown wrote:
For example, with 20 disks at 1 TB each, you can have:
All correct, and these are maximum redundancies.
Maximum:
raid5 = 19TB, 1 disk redundancy
raid6 = 18TB, 2 disk redundancy
raid6.3 = 17TB, 3 disk redundancy
raid6.4 = 16TB, 4 disk redundancy
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 03:28:32PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
On Fri, 22 Nov 2013 12:30:40 +0800, Liu Bo wrote:
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 09:43:14PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
The tasks that wait for the IO_DONE flag just care about the io of the
dirty
pages, so it is better to wake up them
On 21/11/13 23:37, Chris Mason wrote:
Quoting Martin (2013-11-08 18:53:06)
On 08/11/13 22:01, Chris Mason wrote:
Hi everyone,
This patch is now the tip of the master branch for btrfs-progs, which
has been updated to include most of the backlogged progs patches.
Please take a look and give
On 11/21/2013 5:38 PM, John Williams wrote:
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
He wrote that article in late 2009. It seems pretty clear he wasn't
looking 10 years forward to 20TB drives, where the minimum mirror
rebuild time will be ~18 hours, and
Hi,
I'm trying to implement a mechanism for incremental backup using btrfs.
I have two hardisks and each has a btrfs partition on it. I am able to
take a snapshot of the source partition and send it to the backup disk
using the send-recieve mechanism. When I try to send an incremental
backup of a
On Fri, 22 Nov 2013 01:47:43 -0800, Joshua Varghese wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to implement a mechanism for incremental backup using btrfs.
I have two hardisks and each has a btrfs partition on it. I am able to
take a snapshot of the source partition and send it to the backup disk
using the
Hi Stefan,
Thank you for replying. I am running on a 3.10 kernel, will upgrade it
and check.
Regards
On Fri 22 Nov 2013 10:34:08 GMT, Stefan Behrens wrote:
Re: Receive fails (Could not find parent subvolume)
On Fri, 22 Nov 2013 01:47:43 -0800, Joshua Varghese wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to
We met a oops caused by the wrong compression type:
[ 556.512356] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at
(null)
[ 556.512370] IP: [811dbaa0] __list_del_entry+0x1/0x98
[SNIP]
[ 556.512490] [811dbb44] ? list_del+0xd/0x2b
[ 556.512539]
Thank you. it worked with 3.12.0 :)
On Fri 22 Nov 2013 10:44:41 GMT, Joshua wrote:
Hi Stefan,
Thank you for replying. I am running on a 3.10 kernel, will upgrade it
and check.
Regards
On Fri 22 Nov 2013 10:34:08 GMT, Stefan Behrens wrote:
Re: Receive fails (Could not find parent
Quoting Martin (2013-11-22 04:03:41)
On 21/11/13 23:37, Chris Mason wrote:
Quoting Martin (2013-11-08 18:53:06)
On 08/11/13 22:01, Chris Mason wrote:
Hi everyone,
This patch is now the tip of the master branch for btrfs-progs, which
has been updated to include most of the backlogged
I just did a search and couldn't find any probe for btrfs RAID status
The check_raid plugin seems to recognise mdadm and various other types
of RAID but not btrfs
Has anybody seen a plugin for Nagios or could anybody comment on how it
should work if somebody wants to make one?
For example,
Hello Website Owner
We agree that you must be receiving many emails from companies regarding SEO
services. Our questions is have you ever given a serious thought to it for
even a moment that your website, especially in the current scenario, needs SEO?
Keeping in mind what google actually
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
Only one graph goes to 2019, the rest are 2010 or less. That being the
case, his 2019 graph deals with projected reliability of single, double,
and triple parity.
The whole article goes to 2019 (or longer). He shows
On 11/22/2013 2:13 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Hi David,
On 11/21/2013 3:07 AM, David Brown wrote:
...
I don't see that there needs to be any changes to the existing md code
to make raid15 work - it is merely a raid 5 made from a set of raid1
pairs.
The sole purpose of the parity layer of
- Forwarded Message -
From: Stefan Hajnoczi stefa...@redhat.com
To: Eric Sandeen sand...@redhat.com
Cc: virt-de...@redhat.com, Kevin Wolf kw...@redhat.com
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 9:20:51 AM
Subject: [virt-devel] btrfs NOCOW for VM disk images
Hi,
In upstream QEMU we're
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 12:13 AM, Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
Hi David,
On 11/21/2013 3:07 AM, David Brown wrote:
SNIP
Shouldn't we be talking about RAID 15 here, rather than RAID 51 ? I
interpret RAID 15 to be like RAID 10 - a raid5 set of raid1 mirrors,
while RAID 51 would
After an ordered extent completes, don't blindly reset the
inode's ordered tree last accessed ordered extent pointer.
While running the xfstests I noticed that about 29% of the
time the ordered extent to which tree-last pointed was not
the same as our just completed ordered extent. After that I
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 04:52:43PM +, Filipe David Borba Manana wrote:
After an ordered extent completes, don't blindly reset the
inode's ordered tree last accessed ordered extent pointer.
While running the xfstests I noticed that about 29% of the
time the ordered extent to which
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 06:47:59PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
We met a oops caused by the wrong compression type:
[ 556.512356] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at
(null)
[ 556.512370] IP: [811dbaa0] __list_del_entry+0x1/0x98
[SNIP]
[ 556.512490]
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 09:43:18PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
Before applying this patch, the task had to reclaim the metadata space
by itself if the metadata space was not enough. And When the task started
the space reclamation, all the other tasks which wanted to reserve the
metadata space were
After an ordered extent completes, don't blindly reset the
inode's ordered tree last accessed ordered extent pointer.
While running the xfstests I noticed that about 29% of the
time the ordered extent to which tree-last pointed was not
the same as our just completed ordered extent. After that I
On 22/11/13 13:40, Chris Mason wrote:
Quoting Martin (2013-11-22 04:03:41)
* QA Notice: Package triggers severe warnings which indicate that it
*may exhibit random runtime failures.
* disk-io.c:91:5: warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer will break
strict-aliasing rules
Mark Knecht posted on Fri, 22 Nov 2013 08:50:32 -0800 as excerpted:
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 12:13 AM, Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com
wrote:
Now that you mention it, yes, RAID 15 would fit much better with
convention. Not sure why I thought 51. So it's RAID 15 from here.
SNIP
For
Quoting Martin (2013-11-22 14:50:17)
On 22/11/13 13:40, Chris Mason wrote:
Quoting Martin (2013-11-22 04:03:41)
* QA Notice: Package triggers severe warnings which indicate that it
*may exhibit random runtime failures.
* disk-io.c:91:5: warning: dereferencing type-punned
Hi David,
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 01:32:09AM +0100, David Brown wrote:
One typical case is when many errors are
found, belonging to the same disk.
This case clearly shows the disk is to be
replaced or the interface checked...
But, again, the user is the master, not the
machine... :-)
John Dulaney posted on Fri, 22 Nov 2013 11:17:34 -0500 as excerpted:
In upstream QEMU we're discussing patches that set the NOCOW flag on
disk image files. We're told that this increases btrfs performance
greatly since the file system will modify data in-place like ext4/xfs.
Indeed. For VM
On Fri, 22 Nov 2013 21:26:16 + (UTC)
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
During testing I found that the NOCOW flag prevents file cloning from
working. cp --reflink fails with EINVAL when the source file has the
NOCOW flag set.
That would be expected, since disabling COW means the
Chris Mason posted on Fri, 22 Nov 2013 08:40:38 -0500 as excerpted:
Does gentoo modify the optimizations from the Makefile? We actually
have many strict-aliasing warnings, but I didn't think they came up
until -O2.
At any rate, I'm adding -fno-strict-aliasing just to be sure.
FWIW, Gentoo
On Nov 22, 2013, at 9:17 AM, John Dulaney jdula...@redhat.com wrote:
In upstream QEMU we're discussing patches that set the NOCOW flag on
disk image files. We're told that this increases btrfs performance
greatly since the file system will modify data in-place like ext4/xfs.
The best
On 11/22/2013 9:01 AM, John Williams wrote:
snip
I see no advantage of RAID 15, and several disadvantages.
Of course not, just as I sated previously.
On 11/22/2013 2:13 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Parity users who currently shun RAID 10 for this reason will also
shun this RAID 15.
With that
On Fri, 22 Nov 2013 10:07:09 -0600 Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com
wrote:
On 11/22/2013 2:13 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Hi David,
On 11/21/2013 3:07 AM, David Brown wrote:
...
I don't see that there needs to be any changes to the existing md code
to make raid15 work - it is merely
On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 16:57:48 -0600 Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com
wrote:
On 11/21/2013 1:05 AM, John Williams wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:52 PM, Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com
wrote:
On 11/20/2013 8:46 PM, John Williams wrote:
For myself or any machines I managed for
On 22/11/13 19:57, Chris Mason wrote:
Quoting Martin (2013-11-22 14:50:17)
On 22/11/13 13:40, Chris Mason wrote:
Quoting Martin (2013-11-22 04:03:41)
* QA Notice: Package triggers severe warnings which indicate that it
*may exhibit random runtime failures.
* disk-io.c:91:5:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 01:41:41PM +, Filipe David Borba Manana wrote:
This is a revised version of the original proposal/work from Alexander Block
to introduce a generic framework to set properties on btrfs filesystem objects
(inodes, subvolumes, filesystems, devices).
Currently
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 04:00:28AM +0600, Roman Mamedov wrote:
On Fri, 22 Nov 2013 21:26:16 + (UTC)
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
During testing I found that the NOCOW flag prevents file cloning from
working. cp --reflink fails with EINVAL when the source file has the
NOCOW
On 11/22/2013 5:07 PM, NeilBrown wrote:
On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 16:57:48 -0600 Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com
wrote:
On 11/21/2013 1:05 AM, John Williams wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:52 PM, Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com
wrote:
On 11/20/2013 8:46 PM, John Williams wrote:
For
For example, would the command
btrfs filesystem show --all-devices
give a non-zero error status or some other clue if any of the devices
are at risk?
No there isn't any good way as of now. that's something to fix.
Thanks, Anand
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Fri, 22 Nov 2013 21:46:50 -0600 Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com
wrote:
On 11/22/2013 5:07 PM, NeilBrown wrote:
On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 16:57:48 -0600 Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com
wrote:
On 11/21/2013 1:05 AM, John Williams wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:52 PM, Stan
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 9:04 PM, NeilBrown ne...@suse.de wrote:
I guess with that many drives you could hit PCI bus throughput limits.
A 16-lane PCIe 4.0 could just about give 100MB/s to each of 16 devices. So
you would really need top-end hardware to keep all of 16 drives busy in a
On Fri, 22 Nov 2013 21:34:41 -0800 John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 9:04 PM, NeilBrown ne...@suse.de wrote:
I guess with that many drives you could hit PCI bus throughput limits.
A 16-lane PCIe 4.0 could just about give 100MB/s to each of 16 devices.
Hi Piergiorgio,
How about par2? How does this work?
I checked the matrix they use, and sometimes it contains some singular
square submatrix.
It seems that in GF(2^16) these cases are just less common. Maybe they
were just unnoticed.
Anyway, this seems to be an already known problem for PAR2,
43 matches
Mail list logo
