On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Robert White wrote:
> In terms of actual LVs he only seems to have _root_ _opt_ _var_ and _usr_
> once you strip away the various noise components.
I think you win the prize on this. I saw that, and ignored the fact
the LV name was identical for so many of these mo
Original Message
Subject: Re: What does scrub tell me?
From: Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net>
To:
Date: 2015年02月05日 11:43
Sandy McArthur Jr posted on Wed, 04 Feb 2015 12:31:07 -0500 as excerpted:
Does a btrfs scrub verify the integrity of the whole filesystem or just
the data i
Juergen Fitschen posted on Thu, 05 Feb 2015 00:05:33 +0100 as excerpted:
> I just got a deadlock on Linux 3.18.5. [...]
> I am using a freshly installed Ubuntu 14.04 in a virtual machine. The
> block device used for btrfs is a LVM volume offered by the KVM
> hypervisor.
> Unfortunately I was using
Hi Chris,
The problem can be fix by [PATCH] Btrfs: fix BUG_ON in
btrfs_orphan_add() when delete unused block group
Thanks,
-Forrest
2015-02-05 11:08 GMT+08:00 Chris Baker :
> This report also filed on Bugzilla on kernel.org per instructions on btrfs
> Wiki, ID: 92771
>
> Circumstances
>
> Bug a
On 02/04/2015 06:27 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Markus Moeller wrote:
Hi ,
I am new to btrfs and wonder what I need to do to move subvolumes to the
right filesystem. I see the following:
df -h
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/d
Sandy McArthur Jr posted on Wed, 04 Feb 2015 12:31:07 -0500 as excerpted:
> Does a btrfs scrub verify the integrity of the whole filesystem or just
> the data in that filesystem?
Btrfs scrub verifies both data and metadata /checksum/ integrity. From
the below it looks like that's very likely wh
This report also filed on Bugzilla on kernel.org per instructions on
btrfs Wiki, ID: 92771
Circumstances
Bug appeared during a btrfs send operation, from a Sata system drive to
a USB 3 connected portable drive.
The bug occurred around 7GB into a 500GB transfer.
The USB disk is encrypted AES
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Zygo Blaxell
wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 01:53:09PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> This is completely reproducible with a brand new file system created
>> as raid1, using kernel 3.19 and btrfs-progs 3.18.
>
> I think you'll find it's reproducible with any kernel
On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 01:53:09PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
> This is completely reproducible with a brand new file system created
> as raid1, using kernel 3.19 and btrfs-progs 3.18.
I think you'll find it's reproducible with any kernel after 3.8-rc1
(circa October 2012).
> The conversion from
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Markus Moeller wrote:
> Hi ,
>
> I am new to btrfs and wonder what I need to do to move subvolumes to the
> right filesystem. I see the following:
>
> df -h
> Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
> /dev/mapper/system_13.2-root_lv 5.0
Original Message
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Allow btrfsck to reset csum of all tree blocks,
AKA dangerous mode.
From: Paul Jones
To: Martin Steigerwald , Qu Wenruo
Date: 2015年02月04日 18:07
-Original Message-
From: linux-btrfs-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-btrfs
Original Message
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Allow btrfsck to reset csum of all tree blocks,
AKA dangerous mode.
From: Martin Steigerwald
To: Qu Wenruo
Date: 2015年02月04日 17:16
Am Mittwoch, 4. Februar 2015, 15:16:44 schrieb Qu Wenruo:
Btrfs's metadata csum is a good mechanism,
Original Message
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v6 6/9] vfs: Add sb_want_write() function to get
vfsmount from a given sb.
From: Miao Xie
To: Qu Wenruo ,
Date: 2015年02月04日 16:09
On Wed, 04 Feb 2015 10:10:55 +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
*** Please DON'T merge this patch, it's only for
On Wed, Feb 04 2015 at 1:41pm -0500,
Mike Snitzer wrote:
> @@ -527,9 +522,10 @@ static void normal_map_bio(struct dm_target *ti, struct
> bio *bio)
> struct log_writes_c *lc = ti->private;
>
> bio->bi_bdev = lc->dev->bdev;
> + // FIXME: why would bi_sector ever need to be chan
Hey,
I just got a deadlock on Linux 3.18.5. It occurred while processing a some
data: All in all reading from the btrfs volume, decompressing it (the
bottleneck in this process), doing some calculations and finally writing the
results back to a new file on the volume.
I am using a freshly inst
Hi ,
I am new to btrfs and wonder what I need to do to move subvolumes to the
right filesystem. I see the following:
df -h
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/mapper/system_13.2-root_lv 5.0G 1.5G 3.2G 32% /
devtmpfs 235M 8.0K
At a 32 bit Gentoo Linux I get with 3.18.5 the following syslog message:
Feb 4 22:09:36 n22 kernel: INFO: trying to register non-static key.
Feb 4 22:09:36 n22 kernel: the code is fine but needs lockdep annotation.
Feb 4 22:09:36 n22 kernel: turning off the locking correctness validator.
Feb
This is completely reproducible with a brand new file system created
as raid1, using kernel 3.19 and btrfs-progs 3.18.
The conversion from raid1 to single, if paused, will apparently break
the file system's ability to be subsequently mounted writable. And
further, btrfs-image fails. I've updated t
On Mon, Dec 08 2014 at 5:32P -0500,
Josef Bacik wrote:
> This is my latest attempt at a target for testing power fail and fs
> consistency.
> This is based on the idea Zach Brown had where we could just walk through all
> the operations done to an fs in order to verify we're doing the correct t
Does a btrfs scrub verify the integrity of the whole filesystem or
just the data in that filesystem?
I recently removed some unreliable drives from my multi-volume RAID1
btrfs filesystem and ran a scrub that completed with two corrected
errors (see below). I've struggled with this filesystem due
Hi,
this is a heads-up pre-release that should let the distro people test
the reworked build system, switched to autoconf.
However there were some problems [1] found so we have to fix them first
and rc2 should be ready for wider testing in distros. The other changes
are non-intrusive so it's bas
Kernel BUG_ON when running following script on kernel 3.19-rc7
mntpath=/btrfs
loopdev=/dev/loop0
filepath=/volume2/100g_image
umount $mntpath
losetup -d $loopdev
truncate --size 1000g $filepath
losetup $loopdev $filepath
mkfs.btrfs -f $loopdev
mount $loopdev $mntpath
for i in `seq 1 1 100`; do
The problem can be reproduce by following steps on 3.19-rc7 , and the
patch was tested on 3.19-rc7
mntpath=/btrfs
loopdev=/dev/loop0
filepath=/volume2/100g_image
umount $mntpath
losetup -d $loopdev
truncate --size 100g $filepath
losetup $loopdev $filepath
mkfs.btrfs -f $loopdev
mount $loopdev $mn
Hi,
Following command can reproduce the problem of memory leak
mntpath=/volume2
while [ 1 ]; do
btrfs inspect-internal inode-resolve 256 $mntpath >/dev/null
done
The patch was tested on 3.19-rc7
Thanks,
Forrest
2015-02-04 20:10 GMT+08:00 Forrest Liu :
> btrfs_release_extent_buffer_page
If device tree has hole, find_free_dev_extent() cannot find available
address properly.
The example below, has one BIG hole in device tree, and can only
allocate just one chunk in a transaction.
item 9 key (1 DEV_EXTENT 273841913856) itemoff 15811 itemsize 48
dev extent chunk_tree 3
btrfs_release_extent_buffer_page() can't handle dummy extent that
allocated by btrfs_clone_extent_buffer() properly.
Reference count of pages that allocated by btrfs_clone_extent_buffer()
was 2, 1 by alloc_page(), and another by attach_extent_buffer_page().
Signed-off-by: Chien-Kuan Yeh
Signed-o
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 04:38:15PM +0100, David Sterba wrote:
> Rebased on 3.18.3, fixed some minor conflicts.
>
> * I'm a bit surprised that automake is required for the
> config.{guess,sub} and install-sh files
well, it's not required, but autoconf does not provide the scripts.
You have to
> -Original Message-
> From: linux-btrfs-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-btrfs-
> ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Martin Steigerwald
> Sent: Wednesday, 4 February 2015 8:16 PM
> To: Qu Wenruo
> Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Allow btrfsck to reset csum of
Am Mittwoch, 4. Februar 2015, 15:16:44 schrieb Qu Wenruo:
> Btrfs's metadata csum is a good mechanism, keeping bit error away from
> sensitive kernel. But such mechanism will also be too sensitive, like
> bit error in csum bytes or low all zero bits in nodeptr.
> It's a trade using "error tolerance
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 10:26:00PM +, WorMzy Tykashi wrote:
> I've been watching the 3.19.x branch with interest, and noticed that
> you've tagged rc1. Unfortunately, I think I've found a few problems
> with it. I will try to explain here:
Thanks for the early feedback, I did not manage to wri
Original Message
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v6 6/9] vfs: Add sb_want_write() function to get
vfsmount from a given sb.
From: Miao Xie
To: Qu Wenruo ,
Date: 2015年02月04日 16:09
On Wed, 04 Feb 2015 10:10:55 +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
*** Please DON'T merge this patch, it's only for
On Wed, 04 Feb 2015 10:10:55 +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> *** Please DON'T merge this patch, it's only for disscusion purpose ***
>
> There are sysfs interfaces in some fs, only btrfs yet, which will modify
> on-disk data.
> Unlike normal file operation routine we can use mnt_want_write_file() to
> p
32 matches
Mail list logo
