Goffredo Baroncelli posted on Thu, 04 Dec 2014 19:39:37 +0100 as
excerpted:
> To check if a device is a LVM snapshot, it is checked the 'udev'
> device property 'DM_UDEV_LOW_PRIORITY_FLAG' . If it is set to 1,
> the device has to be skipped.
>
> As consequence, btrfs now depends also by the libud
Chris Murphy posted on Thu, 04 Dec 2014 15:25:08 -0700 as excerpted:
> If this is a 512 byte drive:
LOL! And I used to think a (so-called) 1.44 MB floppy was small! Now
you're worried about a half a KiB drive! =:^)
(Yes, I know what you /meant/. But the image this created in my head was
to
Austin S Hemmelgarn posted on Thu, 04 Dec 2014 09:13:45 -0500 as
excerpted:
> Also, for future reference, you can use the switch -mprofiles=single to
> just balance out those chunks.
FWIW, the way I do it has the same effect on those left-over chunks, but
uses a slightly different method and may
On 04-12-2014 05:54, Swâmi Petaramesh wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> BTFS is oopsing on me again ;-)
>
> # uname -r
> 3.17.4-300.fc21.x86_64
>
>
> Déc. 04 08:51:28 vajra kernel: [ cut here ]
> déc. 04 08:51:28 vajra kernel: WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 758 at
fs/btrfs/delayed-
> inode.c:
On 05/12/2014 01:58, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
On 12/04/2014 03:09 AM, Anand Jain wrote:
On 01/12/2014 01:43, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
Hi all,
this patch provides a "mount.btrfs" helper for the mount command. A
btrfs filesystem could span several disks. This helper scans all
the partiti
On Thu, 2014-12-04 at 19:20 +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
> Using SuSE Tumbleweed. Observe:
>
> [samjnaa:~] sudo btrfs fi show
> root's password:
> Label: 'BRIHATII' uuid: 57836428-576e-466b-8a28-7961712867ab
> Total devices 1 FS bytes used 460.19GiB
> devid1 size 931.51GiB
Original Message
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] More generic inode nlink repair function
From: David Sterba
To: Qu Wenruo
Date: 2014年12月05日 01:20
On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 03:41:19PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
How about making lost+found on mkfs.btrfs like ext4?
I hope most user won'
Original Message
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] btrfs-progs:fsck: Recover btree with some
corrupted leaf/node.
From: Qu Wenruo
To: dste...@suse.cz, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Date: 2014年12月05日 08:22
Original Message
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] btrfs-progs:fsck: Re
Original Message
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] btrfs-progs:fsck: Recover btree with some
corrupted leaf/node.
From: David Sterba
To: Qu Wenruo
Date: 2014年12月05日 01:35
On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 10:52:44AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
+ trans = btrfs_start_transaction(root, -1);
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 11:47 PM, Robert White wrote:
>
> If those disappeared, or got stripped off onto other drives then not-amusing
> things would happen.
Well after doing btrfs bal start -mprofiles=single, the FS is
still working...
--
Shriramana Sharma ஶ்ரீரமணஶர்மா श्रीरमणशर्मा
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Peter Volkov wrote:
> Hi, guys again. Looking at this issue, I suspect this is bug in btrfs.
> We'll have to clean up this installation soon, so if there is any
> request to do some debugging, please, ask. I'll try to reiterate what
> was said in this thread.
>
> Sh
Hi, guys again. Looking at this issue, I suspect this is bug in btrfs.
We'll have to clean up this installation soon, so if there is any
request to do some debugging, please, ask. I'll try to reiterate what
was said in this thread.
Short story: btrfs filesystem made of 22 1Tb disks with lot's of f
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
> btrfs RAID-1, one of the drive failed and was replaced.
>
> Unfortunately the second drive is also showing errors and "btrfs device
> delete missing" exits with error:
>
> # btrfs device delete missing /home
> ERROR: error removing the de
btrfs RAID-1, one of the drive failed and was replaced.
Unfortunately the second drive is also showing errors and "btrfs device
delete missing" exits with error:
# btrfs device delete missing /home
ERROR: error removing the device 'missing' - Input/output error
Is there a way for btrfs to ig
On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 07:24:29PM +0100, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
> Add reference to BTRFS_SKIP_LVM_SNAPSHOT environment viarble in
> ^^^
a small typo.. should be "variable".
-- Pasi
> the btrfs(8) documentation.
>
> Signed-off-by: G
LVM snapshots create a problem to the btrfs devices management.
BTRFS assumes that each device haw an unique 'device UUID'.
A LVM snapshot breaks this assumption.
This patch skips LVM snapshots during the device scan phase.
If you need to consider a LVM snapshot you have to set the
environmental v
This patch documents the '-s' switch and the environment variable
BTRFS_SKIP_LVM_SNAPSHOT.
Signed-off-by: Goffredo Baroncelli
---
Documentation/btrfs-device.txt | 6 +-
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/btrfs-device.txt b/Documentation/btrfs-device.tx
Add reference to BTRFS_SKIP_LVM_SNAPSHOT environment viarble in
the btrfs(8) documentation.
Signed-off-by: Goffredo Baroncelli
---
Documentation/btrfs.txt | 8
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/btrfs.txt b/Documentation/btrfs.txt
index 3bdc6b4..889b97c 100644
-
LVM snapshots create a problem to the btrfs devices management.
BTRFS assumes that each device has an unique 'device UUID'.
A LVM snapshot breaks this assumption.
With this patch, 'btrfs device scan' skips LVM snapshot.
If you need to consider a LVM snapshot you have to pass the '-s' switch
ot set
Add a check to ensure that the all devices have differents device uuid.
In case of conflict the program ends.
Pay attention that it is still possible to insert two device with
the same dev uuid via the "btrfs device scan " command.
Signed-off-by: Goffredo Baroncelli
---
volumes.c | 27 ++
LVM snapshots are a problem for the btrfs devices management.
BTRFS assumes that each device have an unique 'device UUID'.
A LVM snapshot breaks this assumption.
This causes a lot of problems if some btrfs device are snapshotted:
- the set of devices for a btrfs multi-volume filesystem may be mi
Always clear a block group's rbnode after removing it from the rbtree to
ensure that any tasks that might be holding a reference on the block group
don't end up accessing stale rbnode left and right child pointers through
next_block_group().
This is a leftover from the change titled:
"Btrfs: fix i
On 12/04/2014 02:53 PM, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
> I observe that whenever I create a BtrFS instance using mkfs.btrfs,
> there is always the leftover cruft of two System/Metadata-Single
> allocation profiles:
>
> btrfs fi df /run/media/samjnaa/BRIHATII/
> Data, single: total=460.01GiB, used=458.47
LVM snapshots create a problem to the btrfs devices management.
BTRFS assumes that each device haw an unique 'device UUID'.
A LVM snapshot breaks this assumption.
This patch skips LVM snapshots during the device scan phase.
If you need to consider a LVM snapshot you have to set the
environmental v
LVM snapshots create a problem to the btrfs devices management.
BTRFS assumes that each device has an unique 'device UUID'.
A LVM snapshot breaks this assumption.
With this patch, 'btrfs device scan' skips LVM snapshot.
If you need to consider a LVM snapshot you have to pass the '-s' switch
ot set
Add reference to BTRFS_SKIP_LVM_SNAPSHOT environment viarble in
the btrfs(8) documentation.
Signed-off-by: Goffredo Baroncelli
---
Documentation/btrfs.txt | 8
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/btrfs.txt b/Documentation/btrfs.txt
index 3bdc6b4..889b97c 100644
-
Add a check to ensure that the all devices have differents device uuid.
In case of conflict the program ends.
Pay attention that it is still possible to insert two device with
the same dev uuid via the "btrfs device scan " command.
Signed-off-by: Goffredo Baroncelli
---
cmds-device.c | 4 ++--
LVM snapshots are a problem for the btrfs devices management.
BTRFS assumes that each device have an unique 'device UUID'.
A LVM snapshot breaks this assumption.
This causes a lot of problems if some btrfs device are snapshotted:
- the set of devices for a btrfs multi-volume filesystem may be m
This patch documents the '-s' switch and the environment variable
BTRFS_SKIP_LVM_SNAPSHOT.
Signed-off-by: Goffredo Baroncelli
---
Documentation/btrfs-device.txt | 6 +-
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/btrfs-device.txt b/Documentation/btrfs-device.tx
I _think_ the "extra" single entries are the entries that deal with the
disk/partition itself and therefore can not ever be distributed.
So like the BTRFS signatures that say "this is the third disk of this
array" (as opposed to the first, second, or fourth etc) and "this is
where my superbloc
On 12/04/2014 05:51 AM, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
IIUC df means "disk free" and is supposed to display the disk's (or
partition's) free space -- but while btrfs fi df displays the
allocated and used sizes, it doesn't actually display the total
capacity of the devices, and subtract the allocated si
On 12/04/2014 03:09 AM, Anand Jain wrote:
>
>
> On 01/12/2014 01:43, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> this patch provides a "mount.btrfs" helper for the mount command. A
>> btrfs filesystem could span several disks. This helper scans all
>> the partitions to discover all the disks req
On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 10:52:45AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> + namelen = (u16)log10(rec->ino) + 1;
Please get rid of log10 and count the digits without the math library.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger
On 12/04/2014 05:50 AM, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
[samjnaa:~] mount | grep btrfs
/dev/sdb1 on /run/media/samjnaa/BRIHATII type btrfs
(rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime,space_cache,uhelper=udisks2)
[samjnaa:~] sudo btrfs fi show /run/media/samjnaa/BRIHATII/
Btrfs v3.17+20141103
[samjnaa:~]
But the manpage
On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 10:52:44AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> + trans = btrfs_start_transaction(root, -1);
What does '-1' mean here? I've never seen this before, just curious.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.ke
On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 12:18:26PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Update on patch 4 and 6, other is not changed.
> This nlink repair function is more generic than the original one.
>
> The old one can only handle a specific case that the inode_ref is
> invalid, either point to a non-exist parent inode
On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 03:41:19PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> > How about making lost+found on mkfs.btrfs like ext4?
> >
> I hope most user won't see the lost+found dir.
...
> So lost+found should only occur when it is needed, and when it is needed
> it will be created.
Ack, as was mentioned befor
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 12:39:23PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> This is a starting point for a debugfs style python interface using
> the search ioctl. For now it can only do one thing, which is to
> print out all the extents in a file and calculate the compression ratio.
>
> Over time it will gro
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:58:49AM +0800, Wang Shilong wrote:
> I did send these patches a long while ago, but due to some reasons,
> they were not merged, these are important fixes for fsck, without
> these patches, extent tree rebuilding did not work with snapshots.
I have the patches in my loca
The call to remove_extent_mapping() actually deletes the extent map
from the list it's included in - fs_info->pinned_chunks - and that
list is protected by the chunk mutex. Therefore make that call
while holding the chunk mutex and remove the redundant list delete
call because it's a noop.
This fi
Hi,
While running xfstests, btrfs/057 complained with a WARNING, and I've
changed WARNING a bit to show the wrong accounting number.
(This did not occur in every run, but it's quite easy to reproduce on
my box, and I use two 2G ramdisks.)
Can someone who is familar with qgroup take a look at thi
On 2014-12-04 09:25, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:43 PM, Austin S Hemmelgarn
wrote:
SuSE may have an old version of btrfs-progs then (which wouldn't surprise
me, it is an 'enterprise' distribution after all), because I haven't seen
this on anything since 3.16.
Well OK I k
I've recently noticed on some of my systems, that btrfs fi df doesn't
consistently show all of the chunk types. I'll occasionally not see the
GlobalReserve, or even anything but System, although the behavior seems
to be consistent for a given filesystem. I'm using btrfs-progs 3.17.1
and kerne
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:43 PM, Austin S Hemmelgarn
wrote:
> SuSE may have an old version of btrfs-progs then (which wouldn't surprise
> me, it is an 'enterprise' distribution after all), because I haven't seen
> this on anything since 3.16.
Well OK I kinda like the "old" name SuSE since that was
On 2014-12-04 09:13, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2014-12-04 08:53, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
I observe that whenever I create a BtrFS instance using mkfs.btrfs,
there is always the leftover cruft of two System/Metadata-Single
allocation profiles:
btrfs fi df /run/media/samjnaa/BRIHATII/
Data,
On 2014-12-04 09:06, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 12:23 AM, David Sterba wrote:
On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 08:45:10PM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 6:26 PM, David Sterba wrote:
Works for me without the root password on a Tumbleweed installation
(with
On 2014-12-04 08:53, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
I observe that whenever I create a BtrFS instance using mkfs.btrfs,
there is always the leftover cruft of two System/Metadata-Single
allocation profiles:
btrfs fi df /run/media/samjnaa/BRIHATII/
Data, single: total=460.01GiB, used=458.47GiB
System, D
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 12:23 AM, David Sterba wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 08:45:10PM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 6:26 PM, David Sterba wrote:
>> >
>> > Works for me without the root password on a Tumbleweed installation
>> > (without apparmor/selinux).
>>
>> Are
I observe that whenever I create a BtrFS instance using mkfs.btrfs,
there is always the leftover cruft of two System/Metadata-Single
allocation profiles:
btrfs fi df /run/media/samjnaa/BRIHATII/
Data, single: total=460.01GiB, used=458.47GiB
System, DUP: total=8.00MiB, used=80.00KiB
System, single:
Using SuSE Tumbleweed. Observe:
[samjnaa:~] sudo btrfs fi show
root's password:
Label: 'BRIHATII' uuid: 57836428-576e-466b-8a28-7961712867ab
Total devices 1 FS bytes used 460.19GiB
devid1 size 931.51GiB used 464.04GiB path /dev/sdb1
Btrfs v3.17+20141103
[samjnaa:~] sudo btrfs
IIUC df means "disk free" and is supposed to display the disk's (or
partition's) free space -- but while btrfs fi df displays the
allocated and used sizes, it doesn't actually display the total
capacity of the devices, and subtract the allocated size and display
the rest.
One should not need to ru
MegaBrutal posted on Thu, 04 Dec 2014 09:20:12 +0100 as excerpted:
> Are you sure it isn't fixed? At least, it parses "rootflags=subvol=@"
> well, which also has multiple = signs. And last time I've tried this,
> and didn't cause any problems:
> "rootflags=device=/dev/mapper/vg-rootlv,subvol=@". T
2014-12-04 6:15 GMT+01:00 Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net>:
>
> Which is why I'm running an initramfs for the first time since I've
> switched to btrfs raid1 mode root, as I quit with initrds back before
> initramfs was an option. An initramfs appended to the kernel image beats
> a separate initrd, b
53 matches
Mail list logo
