Hi all,
The xfstests repository at git://oss.sgi.com/xfs/cmds/xfstests has
just been updated. Patches often get missed, so please check if your
outstanding patches were in this update. If they have not been in
this update, please resubmit them to x...@oss.sgi.com so they can be
picked up in the ne
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 16/01/14 11:23, Toggenburger Lukas wrote:
> One of my ideas was to work on Btrfs.
One thing I would like see it automatic backup copies of data. For
example if you are only using 10% of the total space then make an
additional 9 copies of the data
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 18/01/14 17:13, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> For what it's worth I also tried a btrfs convert on ubuntu precise
> with their stock kernel and old btrfs-tools and it mostly destroyed
> the filesystem too,
Just in case some folks think btrfs-convert never wo
On 01/19/2014 07:17 PM, George Eleftheriou wrote:
> I have been wondering the same thing for quite some time after
> having read this post (which makes a pretty clear case in favour of
> ECC RAM)...
>
> hxxp://forums.freenas.org/threads/ecc-vs-non-ecc-ram-and-zfs.15449/
>
> ... and the ZFS on Lin
On fri, 17 Jan 2014 08:52:55 -0800, Vladi Gergov wrote:
> Not sure if my previous email was received as I sent it from my phone. I
> had to dd the disk off and then losetup mount the image. What do you
> mean by erase the data on loop7? I have tried to mount separately without
> success.
When we m
>From the wiki, I see that scrubbing is not supported on a RAID 5 volume.
Can I still run the scrub routing (maybe read-only?) to check for any issues. I
understand at this point running 3.12 kernel there are no routines to fix
parity issues with RAID 5 while scrubbing but just want to know if I
I have been wondering the same thing for quite some time after having
read this post (which makes a pretty clear case in favour of ECC
RAM)...
hxxp://forums.freenas.org/threads/ecc-vs-non-ecc-ram-and-zfs.15449/
... and the ZFS on Linux FAQ
hxxp://zfsonlinux.org/faq.html#DoIHaveToUseECCMemory
Mor
No balance was running. The usual rsync and btrfs snapshots; I'm unable
to say when exactly it happened (i.e. if it was during rsync or snapshot
adding/removal).
As of defragment - I didn't run it manually, but I have autodefrag
option enabled:
/dev/sdc1 on /mnt/lxc2 type btrfs
(rw,noatime,compre
Martin Steigerwald posted on Sun, 19 Jan 2014 20:02:41 +0100 as excerpted:
> I´d probably like if all computers had ECC RAM, but then I heard more
> than once that ECC doesn´t even detect all possible memory errors.
Heh, don't I know it! I had an original generation dual socket, 3-digit
AMD Opt
George Mitchell posted on Sun, 19 Jan 2014 12:20:22 -0800 as excerpted:
> Just my opinion, of course, but I simply cannot imagine how "an
> incorrect checksum could appear correct due to a memory error". Sorry,
> but I just cannot get my brain around that one. The odds against it
> happening woul
Just my opinion, of course, but I simply cannot imagine how "an
incorrect checksum could appear correct due to a memory error". Sorry,
but I just cannot get my brain around that one. The odds against it
happening would be beyond comprehension. I can easily imagine btrfs
taking a system down d
Am Sonntag, 12. Januar 2014, 23:31:43 schrieb Hendrik Friedel:
> > It mounts OK with no kernel messages?
>
> Yes. Here I mount the three subvolumes:
Does scrubbing the volume give any errors?
I´d test this. If scrubbing runs through without errors at least your data is
currently safe.
As to th
Am Samstag, 18. Januar 2014, 07:16:42 schrieb Duncan:
> Ian Hinder posted on Sat, 18 Jan 2014 01:23:41 +0100 as excerpted:
> > I have been reading a lot of articles online about the dangers of using
> > ZFS with non-ECC RAM. Specifically, the fact that when good data is
> > read from disk and comp
Am Freitag, 17. Januar 2014, 19:30:49 schrieben Sie:
> To start off, I have an encrypted LVM setup with a root logical volume and a
> home logical volume. Today decided to upgrade my home LV to btrfs for
> compression. I installed btrfs-progs, unmounted /home, and ran
> btrfs-convert /dev/MyVolumeG
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 06:24:26PM +, Duncan wrote:
> Martin Walter posted on Fri, 17 Jan 2014 15:18:41 +0100 as excerpted:
>
> > Our problem is a zfs with 20,000 quota-enabled homedirectories and 100
> > snapshots.
> > We would really like to do the same with btrfs, but we don't know how to
>
Hello Tomasz,
This seems a new bug, did you run balance and defragment concurrently for
triggering the following warning?
Thanks,
Wang
2014/1/19 Tomasz Chmielewski :
> Just had a few of these with 3.13.0-rc8:
>
> [262162.560701] [ cut here ]
> [262162.560764] WARNING: CPU:
Hi Filipe,
I think in the context of do_chunk_alloc(), 0 doesn't mean "success".
0 means "allocation was not attempted". While 1 means "allocation was
attempted and succeeded". -ENOSPC means "allocation was attempted but
failed". Any other errno deserves transaction abort.
Anyways, the callers are
Holger Hoffstaette schrieb:
> On Sun, 24 Nov 2013 22:45:59 -0500, Jim Salter wrote:
>
>> TL;DR scrub's ioprio argument isn't really helpful - a scrub murders
>> system performance til it's done.
>>
>> My system:
>>
>> 3.11 kernel (from Ubuntu Saucy)
>
> I don't run Ubuntu, but *maybe* they us
Just had a few of these with 3.13.0-rc8:
[262162.560701] [ cut here ]
[262162.560764] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 22705 at fs/btrfs/backref.c:936
find_parent_nodes+0x378/0x5d2 [btrfs]()
[262162.560872] Modules linked in: ipt_MASQUERADE iptable_nat nf_conntrack_ipv4
nf_defrag_ipv
19 matches
Mail list logo
