[PATCH v2] Btrfs: Check metadata redundancy on balance

Resending as previous comments did not need any changes. 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 give a warning in these

Re: [PATCH] btrfs-progs: print-tree: Output stripe dev uuid

On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 02:48:09PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > Add output for dev uuid for print_chunk(). > > Quite useful to debug temporary btrfs in btrfs-convert. > > Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo Applied, thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line

Re: [PATCH 2/2] btrfs-progs: Rename variables in btrfs_add_to_fsid

On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 11:23:37AM +0800, Zhao Lei wrote: > There are two total_bytes in btrfs_add_to_fsid(), local variable > of total_bytes means fs_total_bytes, and device->total_bytes means > device's total_bytes. > And device's total_bytes in argument is named block_count in current > code. >

[PATCH 2/2] btrfs-progs: mkfs: remove unused code of format uuid string

Variant named dev_uuid and uuid_unparse() for set its value are not used, remove it. Signed-off-by: Zhao Lei --- mkfs.c | 3 --- 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/mkfs.c b/mkfs.c index 75fc086..d5da1fb 100644 --- a/mkfs.c +++ b/mkfs.c @@ -1176,9 +1176,6 @@

[PATCH 1/2] btrfs-progs: mkfs: output device list in sorted order

list_for_each_entry_reverse() in current code can not output devices in sorted order, because the sequence are broken in btrfs_alloc_chunk(). We can use list_sort() instead. Before patch: # mkfs.btrfs -f /dev/vdd /dev/vde /dev/vdf ... Number of devices: 3 Devices: IDSIZE PATH

Re: btrfs driver hangs again

and again :'( [ 360.084133] INFO: task kworker/u16:0:6 blocked for more than 120 seconds. [ 360.084138] Not tainted 4.2.5-300.fc23.x86_64+debug #1 [ 360.084139] "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message. [ 360.084140] kworker/u16:0 D 8807fe5d76d8

btrfs driver hangs again

Hi! please, help me. [ 479.827555] INFO: task kworker/u16:2:140 blocked for more than 120 seconds. [ 479.827558] Not tainted 4.2.5-300.fc23.x86_64+debug #1 [ 479.827559] "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message. [ 479.827560] kworker/u16:2 D

Re: [PATCH 1/2] btrfs-progs: mkfs: output device list in sorted order

On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 07:03:00PM +0800, Zhao Lei wrote: > list_for_each_entry_reverse() in current code can not output > devices in sorted order, because the sequence are broken in > btrfs_alloc_chunk(). > > We can use list_sort() instead. > > Before patch: > # mkfs.btrfs -f /dev/vdd /dev/vde

Re: [PATCH v4 0/9] Btrfs: free space B-tree

Ah, thanks for the information! Happy testing :) 2015-11-03 19:34 GMT+01:00 Chris Mason : > On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 07:13:37PM +0100, Tobias Holst wrote: >> Hi >> >> Anything new on this topic? >> >> I think it would be a great thing and should be merged as soon as it >> is stable.

Re: [PATCH v4 0/9] Btrfs: free space B-tree

Hi Anything new on this topic? I think it would be a great thing and should be merged as soon as it is stable. :) Regards, Tobias 2015-10-02 13:47 GMT+02:00 Austin S Hemmelgarn : > On 2015-09-29 23:50, Omar Sandoval wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Here's one more reroll of the

Re: [PATCH v4 0/9] Btrfs: free space B-tree

On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 07:13:37PM +0100, Tobias Holst wrote: > Hi > > Anything new on this topic? > > I think it would be a great thing and should be merged as soon as it > is stable. :) I've been testing it, but my plan is 4.5. -chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line

Re: Regression in: [PATCH 4/4] btrfs: qgroup: account shared subtree during snapshot delete

On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 09:34:24AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > Stefan Priebe wrote on 2015/11/01 21:49 +0100: > >Hi, > > > >this one: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg47377.html > > > >adds a regression to my test systems with very large disks (30tb and 50tb). > > > >btrfs balance

Re: Regression in: [PATCH 4/4] btrfs: qgroup: account shared subtree during snapshot delete

On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 06:46:06AM +0100, Stefan Priebe wrote: > Am 02.11.2015 um 02:34 schrieb Qu Wenruo: > > > > > >Stefan Priebe wrote on 2015/11/01 21:49 +0100: > >>Hi, > >> > >>this one: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg47377.html > >> > >>adds a regression to my test systems with

Re: Regression in: [PATCH 4/4] btrfs: qgroup: account shared subtree during snapshot delete

Am 03.11.2015 um 20:26 schrieb Mark Fasheh: On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 09:34:24AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: Stefan Priebe wrote on 2015/11/01 21:49 +0100: Hi, this one: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg47377.html adds a regression to my test systems with very large disks (30tb and

Re: Regression in: [PATCH 4/4] btrfs: qgroup: account shared subtree during snapshot delete

Mark Fasheh wrote on 2015/11/03 11:26 -0800: On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 09:34:24AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: Stefan Priebe wrote on 2015/11/01 21:49 +0100: Hi, this one: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg47377.html adds a regression to my test systems with very large disks (30tb and

Re: Regression in: [PATCH 4/4] btrfs: qgroup: account shared subtree during snapshot delete

On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 08:42:33PM +0100, Stefan Priebe wrote: > Sorry don't know much about the btrfs internals. > > I just can reproduce this. Switching to a kernel with this patch and > without. With it takes ages - without it's super fast. I prooved > this several times by just rebooting to

Re: [PATCH 4/4] btrfs: qgroup: account shared subtree during snapshot delete

Mark Fasheh wrote on 2015/11/03 15:56 -0800: On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 09:59:01AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: Mark Fasheh wrote on 2015/09/22 13:15 -0700: Commit 0ed4792 ('btrfs: qgroup: Switch to new extent-oriented qgroup mechanism.') removed our qgroup accounting during btrfs_drop_snapshot().

Re: [PATCH 4/4] btrfs: qgroup: account shared subtree during snapshot delete

On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 09:59:01AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > Mark Fasheh wrote on 2015/09/22 13:15 -0700: > >Commit 0ed4792 ('btrfs: qgroup: Switch to new extent-oriented qgroup > >mechanism.') removed our qgroup accounting during > >btrfs_drop_snapshot(). Predictably, this results in qgroup

Re: Regression in: [PATCH 4/4] btrfs: qgroup: account shared subtree during snapshot delete

On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 03:31:15PM -0800, Mark Fasheh wrote: > On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 08:42:33PM +0100, Stefan Priebe wrote: > > Sorry don't know much about the btrfs internals. > > > > I just can reproduce this. Switching to a kernel with this patch and > > without. With it takes ages - without