On 26/11/2013 7:44 μμ, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
On 2013-11-26 16:12, Konstantinos Skarlatos wrote:
On 25/11/2013 11:23 μμ, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
Hi all,
nobody is interested in these new features ?
Is this ZFS-style recursive snapshotting? If yes, i am interested, and
thanks for your g
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 1:51 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 11:40:49PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Is there supposed to be an /sbin/fsck.btrfs? I'm seeing a handful
>> of threads indicating some idea of having it just do a no-op like
>> fsck.xfs does, but then also t
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I've tagged the current btrfs-progs repo as v3.12. The new idea is that
> instead of making the poor distros pull from git, I'll be creating
> tagged releases at roughly the same pace as Linus cuts kernels.
Great stuff Chris
From: Wang Shilong
When allocating chunk root node, we should use nodesize rather than sectorsize,
this will casue regression when making other nodesize choice.(for example 16k
size now)
Reported-by: Gui Hecheng
Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong
---
chunk-recover.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insert
We were accounting for sizeof(struct btrfs_item) twice, once
in the data_size variable and another time in the if statement
below.
Signed-off-by: Filipe David Borba Manana
---
fs/btrfs/dir-item.c |2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/dir-item.c b/fs/btrf
Now we set @refs to 2 on creating a new extent buffer, meanwhile we
allocate the needed free space, but we don't give enough free_extent_buffer()
to reduce the eb's references to zero so that the eb can finally be freed,
so the problem is we has decrease the referene count of backrefs to zero, whic
Hi
BTRFS filesystem is incompatible with architectures such as PowerPC
and MIPS which have a page size larger than 4k, Meaning that using a
formatted FS on machine with 64K page size will not be mounted on a
machine with 4K page.
I have noticed this remark in the wiki:
https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.o
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 10:47:11AM +0200, Konstantinos Skarlatos wrote:
> Hello,
> in https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Btrfs_source_repositories, i used
> the fedora instructions for Centos.
> The problem is that lzo2-devel is named lzo-devel in Centos, so if somebody
> follows the fedora in
On 2013-11-27 10:15, Konstantinos Skarlatos wrote:
> On 26/11/2013 7:44 μμ, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
>> On 2013-11-26 16:12, Konstantinos Skarlatos wrote:
>>> On 25/11/2013 11:23 μμ, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
Hi all,
nobody is interested in these new features ?
>>> Is this ZFS-sty
btrfs_scan_kernel() does a getmntent() but never releases the
filedescriptor it gets back from that.
Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=64711
Reported-by: Arjan van de Ven
Signed-off-by: David Sterba
---
cmds-filesystem.c | 14 +-
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+),
getmntent should be used in context of *mntent functions, though
fopen/fclose works.
Signed-off-by: David Sterba
---
cmds-send.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/cmds-send.c b/cmds-send.c
index 43ea06b5c23f..3d2171518db8 100644
--- a/cmds-send.c
+++ b/cmds-
Hi list -
Long time ZFS guy here trying to move everything over from ZFS to btrfs,
which entails a lot of re-scripting and re-learning.
Question of the day: how can I determine the size of a btrfs send
operation before hand? I'd like to be able to provide a progress bar
(I'm accustomed to u
Hi Pedro,
Could you please verfiy that if the commit work for you?
This commit[1] has been merged during 3.11-rc7.
-liubo
commit b8d0c69b9469ffd33df30fee3e990f2d4aa68a09
Author: Josef Bacik
Date: Thu Aug 22 17:03:29 2013 -0400
Btrfs: remove ourselves from the cluster list under lock
From: Wang Shilong
When reading block groups we will searching it's corresponding chunk, however,
at this
time, some chunks has not been built(data chunks raid0/raid10/raid56), don't
bug_on here,
we will try to rebuild these chunks later.
Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong
---
chunk-recover.c | 1 +
If no chunks need to be recovered, skip the recover works,
meanwhile the user won't be annoyed by the "ask_user".
Signed-off-by: Gui Hecheng
---
chunk-recover.c | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/chunk-recover.c b/chunk-recover.c
index ae0d318..45d6eae 100644
--- a/chunk-reco
Originally, multi devices are scanned one by one;
Now, one thread is used per device to scan.
Signed-off-by: Gui Hecheng
---
chunk-recover.c | 89 -
1 file changed, 82 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/chunk-recover.c b/chunk-reco
Decide the raid0/5/6 data stripes' order using checksums.
For one chunk, fetch each 64k logical stripe
1. search its checksum in the csum tree
2. read the physical stripe data on each device
3. calc the data checksums
4. if one checksum matches the value from the csu
Late reply. This one got lost in the flurry of activity...
On 11/22/2013 7:24 AM, David Brown wrote:
> On 22/11/13 09:38, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> On 11/21/2013 3:07 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>
>>> For example, with 20 disks at 1 TB each, you can have:
>>
...
>> Maximum:
>>
>> RAID 10 = 10 disk redu
On Thu, 28 Nov 2013, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> We must follow different definitions of "redundancy". I view redundancy
> as the number of drives that can fail without taking down the array. In
> the case of the above 20 drive RAID15 that maximum is clearly 11
> drives-- one of every mirror and both
19 matches
Mail list logo
