Hello,
currently I am trying to recover a btrfs filesystem which had a few subvolumes.
When running
# btrfs restore -sx /dev/xxx .
one subvolume gets restored.
Would the restore utility report any corruption within this subvolume? May I
assume that all data was recovered if there are no
[$] uname -a
Linux beplan 3.18.0-rc1-next-20141023-ARCH-dirty #1 SMP PREEMPT Sat
Oct 25 22:19:01 FET 2014 x86_64 GNU/Linux
I have a custom config for kernel, and i disable debugs feature in kernel.
If needed i can enable it and recompile kernel.
After this message, system boot continue and
Regression test for a btrfs issue where if right after the snapshot
creation ioctl started, a file write followed by a file truncate
happened, with both operations increasing the file's size, the created
snapshot would capture an inconsistent state of the file system tree.
That state reflected the
Hello,
[$] uname -a
Linux beplan 3.18.0-rc1-next-20141023-ARCH-dirty #1 SMP PREEMPT Sat
Oct 25 22:19:01 FET 2014 x86_64 GNU/Linux
I have a custom config for kernel, and i disable debugs feature in
kernel. If needed i can enable it and recompile kernel.
After this message, system boot
On 10/24/2014 10:28 PM, Duncan wrote:
Robert White posted on Fri, 24 Oct 2014 19:41:32 -0700 as excerpted:
On 10/24/2014 04:49 AM, Marc MERLIN wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 06:04:43PM -0500, Larkin Lowrey wrote:
I have a 240GB VirtualBox vdi image that is showing heavy
fragmentation
So I may be completely wrong here and someone might come in and tell me why
this doesn't matter, but I'm just trying to understand the BTRFS code and I
came across something that confused me.
try_release_extent_mapping appears to access page-mapping-host-i_size
without any sort of serialization.
Original Message
Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Enhance btrfs chunk allocation algorithm to
reduce ENOSPC caused by unbalanced data/metadata allocation.
From: Liu Bo bo.li@oracle.com
To: Qu Wenruo quwen...@cn.fujitsu.com
Date: 2014年10月24日 19:06
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at
Am Sat, 25 Oct 2014 14:35:33 -0600
schrieb Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com:
On Oct 25, 2014, at 2:33 PM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
On Oct 25, 2014, at 6:24 AM, Marc Joliet mar...@gmx.de wrote:
First of all: does grub2 support booting from a btrfs file system
Am Sat, 25 Oct 2014 21:58:08 +0200
schrieb Marc Joliet mar...@gmx.de:
Am Sat, 25 Oct 2014 14:24:58 +0200
schrieb Marc Joliet mar...@gmx.de:
I can still access files on MARCEC_BACKUP just fine, and the snapshots are
still there (btrfs subvolume list succeeds).
Just an update: that was
Hi,
Although I'm not completely sure, but it seems that, you really ran out
of space.
[1] Your array won't hold raid1 for 1.97T data
Your array used up 1.97T raid0 data, it takes 1.97T for raid0.
But if converted to 1.97T, it will occupy 1.97T X2 = 3.94T.
Your array are only 2.73T, it is too
Original Message
Subject: read block failed check_tree_block / Couldn't read chunk tree
From: Rene Thomas re.tho...@gmx.de
To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Date: 2014年10月25日 00:43
Dear Developers / Maintainer,
I’ve set up a running RAID5 with three devices (sda1 / sdb1 /sdc1)
Ping？
Any new comments?
It has been a long time and the patch still not merged
Thanks,
Qu
Original Message
Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Add show_path function for btrfs_super_ops.
From: Qu Wenruo quwen...@cn.fujitsu.com
To: dste...@suse.cz, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Date:
Any new comments?
Cc: Satoru
Sorry for the late reply.
Unfortunately, it seems that your mail doesn't show in my inbox, but
only occurs in patchwork.
About writing the dependency in btrfs.txt, since the patch is based on
the btrfs.txt,
it already shows the dependency, so I'd like not to
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 06:34:03PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 01:33:37PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
I'd like to make it default with the 3.17 release of btrfs-progs.
Please let me know if you have objections.
For the record, 3.17 will not change the defaults. The
On Oct 26, 2014, at 7:40 PM, Qu Wenruo quwen...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
Hi,
Although I'm not completely sure, but it seems that, you really ran out of
space.
[1] Your array won't hold raid1 for 1.97T data
Your array used up 1.97T raid0 data, it takes 1.97T for raid0.
But if converted to
Original Message
Subject: Re: Problem converting data raid0 to raid1: enospc errors
during balance
From: Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com
To: Qu Wenruo quwen...@cn.fujitsu.com
Date: 2014年10月27日 12:40
On Oct 26, 2014, at 7:40 PM, Qu Wenruo quwen...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
16 matches
Mail list logo
