Le 2015-09-16 15:04, Stéphane Lesimple a écrit :
I also disabled quota because it has almost for sure nothing
to do with the bug
As it turns out, it seems that this assertion was completely wrong.
I've got balance running for more than 16 hours now, without a crash.
This is almost 50% of the
Le 2015-09-17 05:03, Qu Wenruo a écrit :
Stéphane Lesimple wrote on 2015/09/16 22:41 +0200:
Le 2015-09-16 22:18, Duncan a écrit :
Stéphane Lesimple posted on Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:04:20 +0200 as
excerpted:
Well actually it's the (d) option ;)
I activate the quota feature for only one reason :
As others have said here, it's probably not going to work for you
especially if you want to use regular scheduled btrfs snapshots on the
host (which I consider to be 50% of the reason why I use btrfs in the
first place).
Once I had learned this lesson the hard way, I had a xen server using
libvirt
Stéphane Lesimple wrote on 2015/09/16 22:41 +0200:
Le 2015-09-16 22:18, Duncan a écrit :
Stéphane Lesimple posted on Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:04:20 +0200 as excerpted:
Le 2015-09-16 12:46, Holger Hoffstätte a écrit :
I also disabled quota because it has almost for sure nothing to
do with the b
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Martin Tippmann
wrote:
> From reading the list I understand that btrfs is still very much work
> in progress and performance is not a top priority at this stage but I
> don't see why it shouldn't perform at least equally good as ZFS/F2FS
> on the same workloads. I
To Anand Jain,
Any feedback on this method to allow single chunk still be degraded
mountable?
It should be much better than allowing degraded mount for any missing
device case.
Thanks,
Qu
Qu Wenruo wrote on 2015/09/16 11:43 +0800:
Btrfs supports different raid profile for meta/data/sys, a
Good afternoon,
Earlier today, I tried to set up a storage server using btrfs but ran
into some problems. The goal was to use two disks (4.0TB each) in a
raid1 configuration.
What I did:
1. Attached a single disk to a regular PC configured to boot with UEFI.
2. Booted from a thumb drive that had
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 03:21:26PM -0400, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
> On 2015-09-16 12:45, Martin Tippmann wrote:
> >2015-09-16 17:20 GMT+02:00 Austin S Hemmelgarn :
> >[...]
[...]
> > From reading the list I understand that btrfs is still very much work
> >in progress and performance is not a top
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 03:08:43PM -0400, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
> On 2015-09-16 12:25, Zia Nayamuth wrote:
> >Some response to your criticism:
> >
> >1. How would that hole fare with a fully battery-backed/flash-backed
> >path (battery-backed or f
Vincent Olivier posted on Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:04:38 -0400 as excerpted:
3. He's testing it for a workload is a known and documented problem
for BTRFS, and claiming that that means that it isn't worth
considering as a general usage filesystem. Most people don't run
RDBMS server
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 03:04:38PM -0400, Vincent Olivier wrote:
> > On Sep 16, 2015, at 2:22 PM, Austin S Hemmelgarn
> > wrote:
> > On 2015-09-16 12:51, Vincent Olivier wrote:
> >>> On Sep 16, 2015, at 11:20 AM, Austin S Hemmelgarn
> >>> wrote:
> >>> On 2015-09-16 10:43, M G Berberich wrote:
>
Le 2015-09-16 22:18, Duncan a écrit :
Stéphane Lesimple posted on Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:04:20 +0200 as
excerpted:
Le 2015-09-16 12:46, Holger Hoffstätte a écrit :
I also disabled quota because it has almost for sure nothing to
do with the bug, and now btrsfck is 100% happy:
Yes. Quotas hav
Stéphane Lesimple posted on Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:04:20 +0200 as excerpted:
> Le 2015-09-16 12:46, Holger Hoffstätte a écrit :
>>
>> In that case the "crossing stripe boundary" messages are false
>> positives in btrfs-progs-4.2:
>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg47059.html
>>
>> This
On 2015-09-16 15:04, Vincent Olivier wrote:
On Sep 16, 2015, at 2:22 PM, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2015-09-16 12:51, Vincent Olivier wrote:
Hi,
On Sep 16, 2015, at 11:20 AM, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2015-09-16 10:43, M G Berberich wrote:
Hello,
just for information. I stumble
On 2015-09-16 12:45, Martin Tippmann wrote:
Hi,
2015-09-16 17:20 GMT+02:00 Austin S Hemmelgarn :
[...]
3. He's testing it for a workload is a known and documented problem for
BTRFS, and claiming that that means that it isn't worth considering as a
general usage filesystem. Most people don't ru
On 2015-09-16 12:25, Zia Nayamuth wrote:
Some response to your criticism:
1. How would that hole fare with a fully battery-backed/flash-backed
path (battery-backed or flash-backed HBA with disks with full power-loss
protection, like the Intel S3500)? In such a situation (quite
commonplace in ser
> On Sep 16, 2015, at 2:22 PM, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
>
> On 2015-09-16 12:51, Vincent Olivier wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 16, 2015, at 11:20 AM, Austin S Hemmelgarn
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2015-09-16 10:43, M G Berberich wrote:
Hello,
just for information. I stumbled a
2015-07-21 21:47 GMT+03:00 Hendrik Friedel :
> Hello,
>
> I recently added a third device to my raid and converted it from raid0 to
> raid 5 via balance (dconvert, mconvert).
> Unfortunately, the new device was faulty. I wrote about this on this List in
> "size 2.73TiB used 240.97GiB after balance"
On 2015-09-16 12:51, Vincent Olivier wrote:
Hi,
On Sep 16, 2015, at 11:20 AM, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2015-09-16 10:43, M G Berberich wrote:
Hello,
just for information. I stumbled about a rant about btrfs-performance:
http://blog.pgaddict.com/posts/friends-dont-let-friends-use-bt
Hi,
> On Sep 16, 2015, at 11:20 AM, Austin S Hemmelgarn
> wrote:
>
> On 2015-09-16 10:43, M G Berberich wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> just for information. I stumbled about a rant about btrfs-performance:
>>
>> http://blog.pgaddict.com/posts/friends-dont-let-friends-use-btrfs-for-oltp
I read it
Hi,
2015-09-16 17:20 GMT+02:00 Austin S Hemmelgarn :
[...]
> 3. He's testing it for a workload is a known and documented problem for
> BTRFS, and claiming that that means that it isn't worth considering as a
> general usage filesystem. Most people don't run RDBMS servers on their
> systems, and a
Some response to your criticism:
1. How would that hole fare with a fully battery-backed/flash-backed
path (battery-backed or flash-backed HBA with disks with full power-loss
protection, like the Intel S3500)? In such a situation (quite
commonplace in server-land), power-loss should not cause
On 2015-09-16 10:43, M G Berberich wrote:
Hello,
just for information. I stumbled about a rant about btrfs-performance:
http://blog.pgaddict.com/posts/friends-dont-let-friends-use-btrfs-for-oltp
MfG
bmg
It is worth noting a few things that were done incorrectly in this test
Hello,
just for information. I stumbled about a rant about btrfs-performance:
http://blog.pgaddict.com/posts/friends-dont-let-friends-use-btrfs-for-oltp
MfG
bmg
--
„Des is völlig wurscht, was heut beschlos- | M G Berberich
sen wird: I bin sowieso dagegn!“ | berbe...@
Hi Glyn :)
On 09/16/15 16:31, Glyn Normington wrote:
> We are seeing a very similar problem fwiw. Unfortunately we can't
> reproduce this reliably, but it is cropping up regularly. Here's a
> chore we are using to track our work on this: [2].
>
> Here's the kernel log:
>
> [610194.395845] WARNIN
>On 09/15/15 21:15, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> On 09/15/2015 03:08 PM, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
>>> On 09/15/15 17:50, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
This V2 does indeed seem to fix the issues I reported with snapshot
deletion & concurrent sync. I've now created/filled/deleted countless
snapsho
On 09/16/15 15:50, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On 09/16/2015 04:58 AM, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
>> On 09/15/15 21:15, Josef Bacik wrote:
>>> On 09/15/2015 03:08 PM, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
On 09/15/15 17:50, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
> This V2 does indeed seem to fix the issues I reported with sn
On 09/16/2015 04:58 AM, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
On 09/15/15 21:15, Josef Bacik wrote:
On 09/15/2015 03:08 PM, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
On 09/15/15 17:50, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
This V2 does indeed seem to fix the issues I reported with snapshot
deletion & concurrent sync. I've now created/f
Since several architectures support hardware-accelerated crc32c
calculation, it would be nice to confirm that btrfs is actually using it.
We can see an elevated use count for the module, but it doesn't actually
show who the users are. This patch simply prints the name of the driver
after success
Le 2015-09-16 12:46, Holger Hoffstätte a écrit :
On 09/16/15 12:28, Stéphane Lesimple wrote:
Nice to know that this bug was already somewhat known, but I can
confirm that it actually doesn't come from an ext4 conversion on my
case.
In that case the "crossing stripe boundary" messages are false
> -Original Message-
> From: linux-btrfs-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-btrfs-
> ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Brendan Heading
> Sent: Wednesday, 16 September 2015 9:36 PM
> To: Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net>
> Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: BTRFS as image store f
On 2015-09-16 07:35, Brendan Heading wrote:
Btrfs has two possible solutions to work around the problem. The first
one is the autodefrag mount option, which detects file fragmentation
during the write and queues up the affected file for a defragmenting
rewrite by a lower priority worker thread.
> Btrfs has two possible solutions to work around the problem. The first
> one is the autodefrag mount option, which detects file fragmentation
> during the write and queues up the affected file for a defragmenting
> rewrite by a lower priority worker thread. This works best on the small
> end, b
On 09/16/15 12:28, Stéphane Lesimple wrote:
> Nice to know that this bug was already somewhat known, but I can
> confirm that it actually doesn't come from an ext4 conversion on my
> case.
In that case the "crossing stripe boundary" messages are false positives
in btrfs-progs-4.2: http://www.spini
Le 2015-09-16 07:02, Duncan a écrit :
Stéphane Lesimple posted on Tue, 15 Sep 2015 23:47:01 +0200 as
excerpted:
Le 2015-09-15 16:56, Josef Bacik a écrit :
On 09/15/2015 10:47 AM, Stéphane Lesimple wrote:
I've been experiencing repetitive "kernel BUG" occurences in the
past
few days trying t
Hi, sam tygier
> -Original Message-
> From: linux-btrfs-ow...@vger.kernel.org
> [mailto:linux-btrfs-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of sam tygier
> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 4:42 PM
> To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: [PATCH] Btrfs: Check metadata redundancy on balance
Use common warning/error functions in cmds-scrub.c, it can make
message format unified and make code simple.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo
Signed-off-by: Zhao Lei
---
cmds-scrub.c | 171 +--
1 file changed, 85 insertions(+), 86 deletions(-)
di
Current code use fprintf(stderr, "...") to output warnning and
error information.
The error message have different style, as:
# grep fprintf *.c
fprintf(stderr, "Open ctree failed\n");
fprintf(stderr, "%s: open ctree failed\n", __func__);
fprintf(stderr, "ERROR: cannot open ctree\n");
...
An
Current code use fprintf(stderr, "...") to output warnning and
error information.
The error message have different style, as:
# grep fprintf *.c
fprintf(stderr, "Open ctree failed\n");
fprintf(stderr, "%s: open ctree failed\n", __func__);
fprintf(stderr, "ERROR: cannot open ctree\n");
...
An
Am 15.09.2015 um 17:55 schrieb Hugo Mills:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 04:22:08PM +0200, Juergen Sauer wrote:
>> Due an hibernation event my BTRFS Raid56 failed and is not mountable
>> anymore. :(
>> For Debugging I moved the Devices to an test-hardware and booted this
>> system from an Arch Linux
On 09/15/15 21:15, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On 09/15/2015 03:08 PM, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
>> On 09/15/15 17:50, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
>>> This V2 does indeed seem to fix the issues I reported with snapshot
>>> deletion & concurrent sync. I've now created/filled/deleted countless
>>> snapshots whi
It was recommended that I resend after the merge window. No
changes since last version.
Currently BTRFS allows you to make bad choices of data and
metadata levels. For example -d raid1 -m raid0 means you can
only use half your total disk space, but will loose everything
if 1 disk fails. It should
42 matches
Mail list logo
