Hello Felix,
On 01/10/2014 03:26 PM, Felix Blanke wrote:
Hi Wang,
here are the versioninformation:
server log # btrfs version
Btrfs v3.12-dirty
server log # uname -a
Linux server.home 3.12.6-hardened-r3 #1 SMP Thu Jan 2 13:16:48 CET
2014 x86_64 Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU G1610 @ 2.60GHz
Hi,
Here another version of the new RAID library that addresses the Neil's comments.
The new thing is an example patch to async_tx to support more parities and to
use the new lib.
The RAID library itself is mostly unchanged besides some renaming, removing
the controversial raid_sort() function,
This patch makes crypto/async_tx to use the new raid interface and
generalize its interface to support an arbitrary number of parities.
New functions available are async_raid_gen() to compute parity,
async_raid_val() to validate parity and async_raid_rec() to recover
data. They are a one-to-one
This patch makes btrfs/raid56.c to use the new raid interface and
extends its support to an arbitrary number of parities.
More in details, the two faila/failb failure indexes are now replaced
with a fail[] vector that keeps track of up to six failures.
The new raid_gen() and raid_rec() functions
Steps to reproduce:
# mkfs.btrfs -f /dev/sda8
# mount /dev/sda8 /mnt -o flushoncommit
# dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/data bs=4k count=102400
# mount /dev/sda8 /mnt -o remount, ro
When remounting RW to RO, the logic is to firstly set flag
to RO and then commit transaction, however with option
Hi Want,
you were right, I do have a subvolume called @ on the receive side,
I wasn't aware of that. So I changed the mounting to not use any
subvolume and it did succeed as far as I can see. Thank you for your
help!
Regards,
Felix
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Wang Shilong
Here we are not going to free memory, no need to remove every node
one by one, just init root node here is ok.
Cc: Liu Bo bo.li@oracle.com
Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong wangsl.f...@cn.fujitsu.com
---
fs/btrfs/ulist.c | 4 +---
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 11:47:14PM +0100, Pascal VITOUX wrote:
Skip non-regular files to avoid ioctl errors while defragmenting.
They are silently ignored in recursive mode but reported as errors when
used as command-line arguments.
Nice, thanks, added to integration.
--
To unsubscribe from
Peter van Hoof posted on Fri, 10 Jan 2014 04:59:46 +0100 as excerpted:
I am using btrfs for my backup RAID.
Oh, boy! You're doing several things wrong in this post, tho you've also
managed to get a couple thing right that a lot of people get wrong, too,
which just might have saved your
The following steps could trigger btrfs segfault:
mkfs -t btrfs -m raid5 -d raid5 /dev/loop{0..3}
losetup -d /dev/loop2
btrfs check /dev/loop0
The reason is that read_tree_block() returns NULL and
add_root_to_pending() dereferences it without checking it first.
Also replace a BUG_ON with proper
:22 60+
1 Merge tag 'clk-fixes-for-linus' of
git://git.linaro.org/people/mike.turquette/linux
git bisect bad 1955a14a5ba6e3c3b7812d11dc550ccc37ae # 20:22 0-
52 Add linux-next specific files for 20140110
Thanks,
Fengguang
--
Filipe David Manana,
Reasonable men
On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 14:26:19 + (UTC)
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
IOW, your backups shouldn't be btrfs, because btrfs itself is testing,
and any data stored on it is by definition testing-only data you don't
particularly care about, either because you have good tested-restorable
George Eleftheriou posted on Thu, 09 Jan 2014 17:49:48 +0100 as excerpted:
I'm really looking forward to the day that typing:
mkfs.btrfs -d raid10 -m raid10 /dev/sd[abcd]
will do exactly what is expected to do. A true RAID10 resilient in 2
disks' failure. Simple and beautiful.
We're
On 01/10/2014 07:27 AM, Duncan wrote:
George Eleftheriou posted on Thu, 09 Jan 2014 17:49:48 +0100 as excerpted:
I'm really looking forward to the day that typing:
mkfs.btrfs -d raid10 -m raid10 /dev/sd[abcd]
will do exactly what is expected to do. A true RAID10 resilient in 2
disks'
Roman Mamedov posted on Fri, 10 Jan 2014 21:16:59 +0600 as excerpted:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 14:26:19 + (UTC)
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
IOW, your backups shouldn't be btrfs, because btrfs itself is testing,
and any data stored on it is by definition testing-only data you don't
On 1/8/14, 12:30 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Test remount btrfs with different pairing options like barrier and no barrier.
It seems that while this tests that the remount succeeds, and that
the option string is present in /proc/mounts, it does not test that
the mount option is actually in effect.
I
Chris Murphy posted on Thu, 09 Jan 2014 11:52:08 -0700 as excerpted:
Understood. I'm considering a 2nd drive dying during rebuild (from a 1st
drive dying) as essentially simultaneous failures. And in the case of
raid10, the likelihood of a 2nd drive failure being the lonesome drive
in a
Hello,
I was wondering whether I am doing something wrong in the way I am
asking/what I am asking.
My understanding is, that btrfsck is not able to fix this error yet. So,
I am surprised, that noone is interested in this, apparently?
Regards,
Hendrik Friedel
Am 07.01.2014 21:38, schrieb
On Jan 10, 2014, at 4:53 PM, Hendrik Friedel hend...@friedels.name wrote:
Hello,
I was wondering whether I am doing something wrong in the way I am
asking/what I am asking.
My understanding is, that btrfsck is not able to fix this error yet. So, I am
surprised, that noone is interested
19 matches
Mail list logo
