On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 04:26:43 Duncan wrote:
> Russell Coker posted on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 10:51:00 +1000 as excerpted:
> > On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 20:30:32 Zack Coffey wrote:
> >> Can I get more protection by using more than 2 drives?
> >>
> >> I had an onboard RAID a few years back that would let me use
Russell Coker posted on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 10:51:00 +1000 as excerpted:
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 20:30:32 Zack Coffey wrote:
>> Can I get more protection by using more than 2 drives?
>>
>> I had an onboard RAID a few years back that would let me use RAID1
>> across up to 4 drives.
>>
> Currently the
On 06/27/2014 07:40 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 18:34:34 Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
>> I don't think that it is possible to mount the _same device_ at the _same
>> time_ on two different machines. And this doesn't depend by the filesystem.
>
> If you use a clustered filesystem t
On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 20:30:32 Zack Coffey wrote:
> Can I get more protection by using more than 2 drives?
>
> I had an onboard RAID a few years back that would let me use RAID1
> across up to 4 drives.
Currently the only RAID level that fully works in BTRFS is RAID-1 with data on
2 disks. If you
Can I get more protection by using more than 2 drives?
I had an onboard RAID a few years back that would let me use RAID1
across up to 4 drives.
Apologies if this has been covered already, I don't recall seeing
anything saying yay or nay.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscri
On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 05:20:41 PM Duncan wrote:
> If I'm not mistaken the fix for the 3.16 series bug was:
>
> ea4ebde02e08558b020c4b61bb9a4c0fcf63028e
>
> Btrfs: fix deadlocks with trylock on tree nodes.
That patch applies cleanly to 3.15.2 so if it is indeed the fix it should
probably go to -s
On 06/27/2014 05:05 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
Mark noticed that his qgroup accounting for snapshot deletion wasn't working
properly on a particular file system. Turns out we pass the root->objectid of
the root we are deleting to btrfs_free_extent, and use that root always when we
call btrfs_free_tr
On 06/27/2014 04:59 PM, Marc MERLIN wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 03:36:08PM -0700, Josef Bacik wrote:
On 06/27/2014 11:50 AM, Marc MERLIN wrote:
My laptop deadlocked some more times (everything works until it needs to
touch the filesystem, and then it's deadlocked).
Unfortunately, I can trigg
Mark noticed that his qgroup accounting for snapshot deletion wasn't working
properly on a particular file system. Turns out we pass the root->objectid of
the root we are deleting to btrfs_free_extent, and use that root always when we
call btrfs_free_tree_block. This isn't correct, the owner must
Mark noticed that his qgroup accounting for snapshot deletion wasn't working
properly on a particular file system. Turns out we pass the root->objectid of
the root we are deleting to btrfs_free_extent, and use that root always when we
call btrfs_free_tree_block. This isn't correct, the owner must
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 03:36:08PM -0700, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On 06/27/2014 11:50 AM, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> >My laptop deadlocked some more times (everything works until it needs to
> >touch the filesystem, and then it's deadlocked).
> >Unfortunately, I can trigger sysrq, but it doesn't get committ
On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 18:34:34 Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
> I don't think that it is possible to mount the _same device_ at the _same
> time_ on two different machines. And this doesn't depend by the filesystem.
If you use a clustered filesystem then you can safely mount it on multiple
machines.
I
On 06/27/2014 11:50 AM, Marc MERLIN wrote:
My laptop deadlocked some more times (everything works until it needs to
touch the filesystem, and then it's deadlocked).
Unfortunately, I can trigger sysrq, but it doesn't get committed to disk and
netconsole eats half of it because it goes too fast for
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 02:50:10PM -0700, ronnie sahlberg wrote:
> > If I don't hear anything by the end of today, I'll just delete the
> > filesystem and start over.
>
> At some stage it would be nice to see not only fixes but also changes
> to fsck to make it able to repair these problems.
> Blo
On Jun 27, 2014, at 4:08 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Jun 27, 2014, at 2:07 PM, Sébastien ROHAUT
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> In the wiki, it's said we can mount subvolumes with different mount options.
>> nosuid, nodev, rw and ro are listed, as valid generic mount options.
>
> This might re
On Jun 27, 2014, at 2:07 PM, Sébastien ROHAUT wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In the wiki, it's said we can mount subvolumes with different mount options.
> nosuid, nodev, rw and ro are listed, as valid generic mount options.
This might require 3.15. I don't recall it working with early 3.14 kernels, but
b
The commit
0780253 btrfs: Cleanup the btrfs_parse_options for remount.
broke ssd options quite badly; it stopped making ssd_spread
imply ssd, and it made "nossd" unsettable.
Put things back at least as well as they were before
(though ssd mount option handling is still pretty odd:
# mount -o "no
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 11:50:09AM -0700, Marc MERLIN wrote:
>> My laptop deadlocked some more times (everything works until it needs to
>> touch the filesystem, and then it's deadlocked).
>> Unfortunately, I can trigger sysrq, but it doesn't g
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/27/14, 2:27 PM, Roman Mamedov wrote:
> Hello,
>
> With kernel 3.14.5...
>
> $ sudo umount /mnt/net/alpha/11
> umount: /mnt/net/alpha/11: not mounted
>
> $ sudo mount -o
> inode_cache,space_cache,compress=lzo,noatime,nossd,skip_balance /dev/nbd
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 11:50:09AM -0700, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> My laptop deadlocked some more times (everything works until it needs to
> touch the filesystem, and then it's deadlocked).
> Unfortunately, I can trigger sysrq, but it doesn't get committed to disk and
> netconsole eats half of it beca
Hi,
In the wiki, it's said we can mount subvolumes with different mount
options. nosuid, nodev, rw and ro are listed, as valid generic mount
options.
https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/FAQ#Can_I_mount_subvolumes_with_different_mount_options.3F
But, when I try to mount my subvolume in re
Hello,
With kernel 3.14.5...
$ sudo umount /mnt/net/alpha/11
umount: /mnt/net/alpha/11: not mounted
$ sudo mount -o inode_cache,space_cache,compress=lzo,noatime,nossd,skip_balance
/dev/nbd11 /mnt/net/alpha/11
$ sudo mount | grep nbd11
/dev/nbd11 on /mnt/net/alpha/11 type btrfs
(rw,noatime,com
My laptop deadlocked some more times (everything works until it needs to
touch the filesystem, and then it's deadlocked).
Unfortunately, I can trigger sysrq, but it doesn't get committed to disk and
netconsole eats half of it because it goes too fast for UDP apparently
Now, I just captured that on
Hello, =)
I got a problem with a simple backup bash script. It creates a snapshot and
then backs it up.
The user (Ubuntu 12.04, 64-bit) interrupted the script with CTRL+C shortly
after it started.
Then the machine was rebooted several times. Now these snapshots cannot be
deleted anymore
and new
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Jun 27, 2014, at 9:14 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
>>
>> I got another block this morning and failed to capture a log before my
>> terminals gave out. I switched back to 3.15.0 for the moment, and
>> we'll see if that fares any better.
>
>
You can't do that, it doesn't work.
The only way you can access the same block device from multiple hosts
at the same time is if you use a cluster filesystem.
Using a non-cluster filesystem like this is highly unsafe and will
very likely quickly lead to total dataloss.
(
I am a little bit surpris
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Austin S Hemmelgarn
wrote:
> On 2014-06-27 12:34, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
>> Hi,
>> On 06/27/2014 05:44 PM, Zhe Zhang wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I setup 2 Linux servers to share the same device through iSCSI. Then I
>>> created a btrfs on the device. Then I saw the
Chris Murphy posted on Fri, 27 Jun 2014 09:52:46 -0600 as excerpted:
> On Jun 27, 2014, at 9:14 AM, Rich Freeman
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> Hopefully that problem's fixed on 3.16-rc2+, but as of yet there's not
>>> enough 3.16-rc2+ rep
On 2014-06-27 12:34, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
> Hi,
> On 06/27/2014 05:44 PM, Zhe Zhang wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I setup 2 Linux servers to share the same device through iSCSI. Then I
>> created a btrfs on the device. Then I saw the problem that the 2 Linux
>> servers do not see a consistent file syst
On 6/27/14, 11:10 AM, David Sterba wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 10:36:54AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
...
>> btrfs tries to handle a flag value which is identical to the
>> 'X' flag value, which lsattr/chattr says is readonly...
>
> I'm looking at it from the kernel side, ie what's its meani
Hi,
On 06/27/2014 05:44 PM, Zhe Zhang wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I setup 2 Linux servers to share the same device through iSCSI. Then I
> created a btrfs on the device. Then I saw the problem that the 2 Linux
> servers do not see a consistent file system image.
>
> Details:
> -- Server 1 running kernel 2.6
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 10:36:54AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >> #define FS_NOCOMP_FL0x0400 /* Don't compress */
> >
> > Passing this bit directly via ioctl works as expected, but to my
> > knowledge there is no chattr letter allocated for it.
>
> it's in the manpage, bu
On Jun 27, 2014, at 9:14 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Hopefully that problem's fixed on 3.16-rc2+, but as of yet there's not
>> enough 3.16-rc2+ reports out there from folks experiencing issues with
>> 3.15 blocked tasks to ri
Hi,
I setup 2 Linux servers to share the same device through iSCSI. Then I
created a btrfs on the device. Then I saw the problem that the 2 Linux
servers do not see a consistent file system image.
Details:
-- Server 1 running kernel 2.6.32, server 2 running 3.2.1
-- Both running btrfs v0.20-rc1
-
On 6/27/14, 10:30 AM, David Sterba wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 09:56:10AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>> * and 'X' does not mean "no compression" and never has, although I'd
>>> like to see a chattr bit for that because we have the corresponding
>>> inode bit
>>
>> Ok, then I'm not sure wh
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 09:56:10AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > * and 'X' does not mean "no compression" and never has, although I'd
> > like to see a chattr bit for that because we have the corresponding
> > inode bit
>
> Ok, then I'm not sure what it does mean. Supposedly these flags are
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Hopefully that problem's fixed on 3.16-rc2+, but as of yet there's not
> enough 3.16-rc2+ reports out there from folks experiencing issues with
> 3.15 blocked tasks to rightfully say.
Any chance that it was backported to 3.15.
On 6/27/14, 8:42 AM, David Sterba wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 03:38:33PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> +FILE ATTRIBUTES
>> +---
>> +The btrfs filesystem supports setting the following file
>> +attributes the `chattr`(1) utility
>> +append only (a), no atime updates (A), compressed
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 03:38:33PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> +FILE ATTRIBUTES
> +---
> +The btrfs filesystem supports setting the following file
> +attributes the `chattr`(1) utility
> +append only (a), no atime updates (A), compressed (c), no copy on write (C),
> +no dump (d), synch
Tomasz Chmielewski posted on Fri, 27 Jun 2014 12:02:43 +0200 as excerpted:
>> I've been getting blocked tasks on 3.15.1 generally at times when the
>> filesystem is somewhat busy (such as doing a backup via scp/clonezilla
>> writing to the disk).
>
> I've started seeing similar on several servers
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:53:05AM +0800, Gui Hecheng wrote:
> @@ -2521,6 +2521,9 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> }
>
> argc = argc - optind;
> + if (argc < 2)
Please use the check_argc_min helper instead. Thanks.
> + print_usage();
> +
> dev_cnt = argc -
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 09:40:40PM +0200, Nils Steinger wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 05:04:42PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 04:23:48AM +0200, Nils Steinger wrote:
> > > + rmdir -p --ignore-fail-on-non-empty $(DESTDIR)$(man8dir)
> >
> > > + rmdir -p --ignore-fail-on-n
I've been getting blocked tasks on 3.15.1 generally at times when the
filesystem is somewhat busy (such as doing a backup via scp/clonezilla
writing to the disk).
A week ago I had enabled snapper for a day which resulted in a daily
cleanup of about 8 snapshots at once, which might have contribute
Hi Franziska,
(2014/06/26 20:34), Franziska Näpelt wrote:
Hi Satoru,
I'm sorry, but the boot process is always runnig(i hope so), i can't
login until now. So therefore i have currently no logs.
I don't want to interrupt these process, because there are a lot of
fileactions on the harddrive (LE
Hi Franziska,
(2014/06/27 14:00), Franziska Näpelt wrote:
Hi!
After about 12 hours of booting, the system runs now
Congratulations!
The fifth harddrive is still in the btrfs-pool.
Here is the log from the crash, while the btrfs delete job runs:
Jun 25 20:34:59 hsad-srv-03 kernel: [614028
45 matches
Mail list logo
