Hi all,
While I haven't gotten any scrub already running type errors any more, I do
get one strange case of state misreport. When running scrub on /home (btrfs
RAID10), after 3 of 4 drives have completed, the 4th drive (sdb) will report as
interrupted, despite still running:
# btrfs scrub
size of @btrfsic_state needs more than 2M, it is very likely to
fail allocating memory using kzalloc(). see following mesage:
[91428.902148] Call Trace:
[816f6e0f] dump_stack+0x4d/0x66
[811b1c7f] warn_alloc_failed+0xff/0x170
[811b66e1] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x951/0xc30
A new helper kvfree() in mm/utils.c will do this.
Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong wangshilong1...@gmail.com
---
fs/btrfs/raid56.c | 13 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/raid56.c b/fs/btrfs/raid56.c
index 6a41631..12e343b 100644
---
I have a workstation running Linux 3.14.something on a 120G SSD. It recently
had a problem and now the root filesystem can't be mounted, here is the
message I get when trying to mount it read-only on Debian kernel 3.16.2-3:
[4703937.784447] BTRFS info (device loop0): disk space caching is
In preparation for adding support for the lazytime mount option, we
need to be able to separate out the update_time() and write_time()
inode operations. Currently, only btrfs and xfs uses update_time().
We needed to preserve update_time() because btrfs wants to have a
special
Guarantee that the on-disk timestamps will be no more than 24 hours
stale.
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o ty...@mit.edu
---
fs/fs-writeback.c | 1 +
fs/inode.c | 16 +++-
include/linux/fs.h | 1 +
3 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o ty...@mit.edu
---
fs/fs-writeback.c | 5 -
fs/inode.c| 5 +
include/trace/events/fs.h | 56 +++
3 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
create mode 100644 include/trace/events/fs.h
Add an optimization for the MS_LAZYTIME mount option so that we will
opportunistically write out any inodes with the I_DIRTY_TIME flag set
in a particular inode table block when we need to update some inode in
that inode table block anyway.
Also add some temporary code so that we can set the
Add a new mount option which enables a new lazytime mode. This mode
causes atime, mtime, and ctime updates to only be made to the
in-memory version of the inode. The on-disk times will only get
updated when (a) if the inode needs to be updated for some non-time
related change, (b) if userspace
This is an updated version of what had originally been an
ext4-specific patch which significantly improves performance by lazily
writing timestamp updates (and in particular, mtime updates) to disk.
The in-memory timestamps are always correct, but they are only written
to disk when required for
On 11/21/2014 05:28 AM, Zygo Blaxell wrote:
e.g. if an ext4 filesystem explodes, I can:
1. make a LVM snapshot of the broken filesystem
2. run e2fsck on the snapshot
3. mount and repair the snapshot, e.g. rsync any missing files
from backups, salvage anything
I don't know how to fix this but I've convinced myself there's at
least a small problem. And not just with LVM snapshots as in the
originating thread.
- Via seed device method of creating a Btrfs volume, the resulting
volume gets a new UUID. The volume UUID from the seed device doesn't
pass
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 07:00:45PM +0100, David Sterba wrote:
+ pr_err(BTRFS: swapfile has holes);
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ goto out;
+ }
+ if (em-block_start == EXTENT_MAP_INLINE) {
+ pr_err(BTRFS:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 11/21/2014 04:12 PM, Robert White wrote:
Here's a bug from 2005 of someone having a problem with the ACPI
IDE support...
That is not ACPI emulation. ACPI is not used to access the disk,
but rather it has hooks that give it a chance to diddle
+btrfs list so that someone can correct me if I'm wrong.
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 09:34:59PM +0100, Patrik Lundquist wrote:
Hi,
I was scratching my head over a failing btrfs balance and read your
very informative
On 11/22/2014 02:50 PM, Robert White wrote:
Take a couple snapshots of a subvolume, and then
send those subvolumes to another file system with send/receive, and then
do btrfs subvolume list -u -q on the two filesystems and tell me that
mess makes sense. Or try to recreate a subvolume from its
On 22 November 2014 at 23:26, Marc MERLIN m...@merlins.org wrote:
This one hurts my brain every time I think about it :)
I'm new to Btrfs so I may very well be wrong, since I haven't really
read up on it. :-)
So, the bigger the -dusage number, the more work btrfs has to do.
Agreed.
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 12:26:38AM +0100, Patrik Lundquist wrote:
I realize that I interpret the usage parameter as operating on blocks
(chunks? are they the same in this case?) that are = 55% full while
you interpret it as = 55% free.
Which is correct?
I will let someone else answer
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 12:26:38AM +0100, Patrik Lundquist wrote:
On 22 November 2014 at 23:26, Marc MERLIN m...@merlins.org wrote:
This one hurts my brain every time I think about it :)
I'm new to Btrfs so I may very well be wrong, since I haven't really
read up on it. :-)
So, the
Which is the best GIT repository to clone for each of the kernel support
and btrfs-progs, for preparing a patch to submit to this email list?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 06:34:38PM +0100, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
On 11/21/2014 05:28 AM, Zygo Blaxell wrote:
e.g. if an ext4 filesystem explodes, I can:
1. make a LVM snapshot of the broken filesystem
2. run e2fsck on the snapshot
3. mount and repair the
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 12:05:04AM +, Hugo Mills wrote:
Which is correct?
Less than or equal to 55% full.
This confuses me. Does that mean that the fullest blocks do not get
rebalanced?
I guess I was under the mistaken impression that the more data you had the
more you could be out
Strangely I repeated the same process on the same system (btrfs-zero-log and
mount read-only) and it worked. While it's a concern that repeating the same
process gives different results it's nice that I'm getting all my data back.
On Sun, 23 Nov 2014, Russell Coker russ...@coker.com.au wrote:
Marc MERLIN posted on Sat, 22 Nov 2014 17:07:42 -0800 as excerpted:
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 12:05:04AM +, Hugo Mills wrote:
Which is correct?
Less than or equal to 55% full.
This confuses me. Does that mean that the fullest blocks do not get
rebalanced?
Yes. =:^)
I guess I
24 matches
Mail list logo
