Thanks for the ideas. Sadly, no snapshots, unless btrfs does that by
default. Never heard of snapper before.
Don't see how open files could be a problem, since the computer has
been rebooted several times.
I wonder... could the distribution upgrade have moved all the old
files into a hidden tra
Hey all
I've been trying to figure out why my system (home desktop) is taking
so long to boot. Systemd-analyze tells me that my root filesystem
partition (which is btrfs) takes ~11 seconds to become active, and I'm
curious as to why and whether or not I can optimise this.
The primary disk has 4 p
On Sat, 2015-11-14 at 09:22 +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Manually checked they all.
thanks a lot :-)
> Strangely, they are all OK... although it's a good news for you.
Oh man... you're s mean ;-D
> They are all tree blocks and are all in metadata block group.
and I guess that's... expected/int
On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 11:04:42AM +, fdman...@kernel.org wrote:
> From: Filipe Manana
>
> We are holding a btree path with spinning locks and then we attempt to
> clone an extent buffer, which calls kmem_cache_alloc() and this function
> can sleep, causing the following trace to be reported
在 2015年11月13日 05:51, Christoph Anton Mitterer 写道:
Hey.
I get these errors on fsck'ing a btrfs:
bad extent [5993525264384, 5993525280768), type mismatch with chunk
bad extent [5993525280768, 5993525297152), type mismatch with chunk
bad extent [5993525297152, 5993525313536), type mismatch with c
在 2015年11月13日 18:20, Anand Jain 写道:
Thanks for commenting.
I'm sorry but I didn't quite see the benefit of a spare device.
Aside from what Duncan said (and I happen to agree with him), there is
also the fact that hot-spares are (at least traditionally in most RAID
systems) usually used wit
Hugo Mills posted on Fri, 13 Nov 2015 21:13:41 + as excerpted:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 09:11:46PM +, Duncan wrote:
>> Hugo Mills posted on Fri, 13 Nov 2015 19:55:20 + as excerpted:
>>
>> > receive is implemented almost exclusively in userspace, with only a
>> > couple of ioctls for
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 04:33:23PM -0600, Brenton Chapin wrote:
> I was running Lubuntu 14.04 on btrfs with lzo compresssion on, with
> the following partition scheme:
>
> sda5 232M /boot
> sda6 16G /
> sda7 104G /home
>
> (sda5 is ext4)
>
> I did 2 distribution upgrades, one after the
I was running Lubuntu 14.04 on btrfs with lzo compresssion on, with
the following partition scheme:
sda5 232M /boot
sda6 16G /
sda7 104G /home
(sda5 is ext4)
I did 2 distribution upgrades, one after the other, to 15.04, then
15.10, since the upgrade utility would not go directly to the
Move the cp --reflink tests from btrfs/ to generic/ since xfs now
supports that ioctl.
Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong
---
tests/btrfs/026 | 92 -
tests/btrfs/026.out | 16 ---
tests/btrfs/027 | 109 ---
Put all the reflink/dedupe-related test support routines in a separate
file, then modify the existing reflink tests to use them.
Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong
---
common/rc | 51 +--
common/reflink| 185 +
tests/btrf
Make sure that running reflink ops while other IO is ongoing doesn't
break the filesystem.
Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong
---
tests/generic/161 | 79 +
tests/generic/161.out |6 +++
tests/generic/162 | 95 +++
Ensure that copy-on-writing a reflinked file when there's no free disk
space reflects the desired ENOSPC back to userspace during the write
call. Tests the buffered IO, direct IO, and mmap write paths.
Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong
---
tests/generic/171 | 107 +
Check that the various XFS tools still work properly on reflinked XFSes.
Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong
---
tests/xfs/127 | 79
tests/xfs/127.out |6 ++
tests/xfs/128 | 149 +
tests/xfs/128.out | 27
Check that we can feed bad inputs to reflink/dedupe and it'll reject
them.
Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong
---
tests/generic/157 | 122 +
tests/generic/157.out | 25 ++
tests/generic/158 | 123
Check that the free block counts seem to be handled correctly in
the reflink operation and subsequent attempts to rewrite reflinked
copies.
Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong
---
tests/generic/150 | 78 +++
tests/generic/150.out |4 ++
tests/generic/151 |
Add a few horrible opt-in stress tests to see what happens if we try
to reflink the same block billions of times, and what happens if we
run out of space while reflinking a file.
Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong
---
tests/generic/175 | 99 +
te
Check that the variants of fallocate (allocate, punch, zero range,
collapse range, insert range) do the right thing when they're run
against a range of reflinked blocks.
Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong
---
tests/generic/144 | 142 +
tests/gener
Ensure that CoW happens correctly with buffered, directio, and mmap writes.
Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong
---
tests/generic/138 | 152 +
tests/generic/138.out | 19 ++
tests/generic/139 | 151 +++
Test the operation of the btrfs (and now xfs) reflink and dedupe
ioctls at various file offsets and with matching and nonmatching
files.
Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong
---
tests/generic/116 | 92 +++
tests/generic/116.out |8 ++
tests/generic/118 | 93
Add two scripts: "nextid" finds the next available test ID number in a
group, and "mvtest" relocates a test, fixes the golden output, and
moves the group entry for that test.
Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong
---
mvtest | 58 ++
nextid | 3
Hi all,
This is part of the third revision of an RFC for adding to XFS support
for tracking reverse-mappings of physical blocks to file and metadata;
and support for mapping multiple file logical blocks to the same
physical block, more commonly known as reflinking.
This patchset aims to make xfst
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 09:11:46PM +, Duncan wrote:
> Hugo Mills posted on Fri, 13 Nov 2015 19:55:20 + as excerpted:
>
> > receive is implemented almost exclusively in userspace, with only a
> > couple of ioctls for mucking around with the UUIDs at the end.
>
> I wasn't aware of that and
Hugo Mills posted on Fri, 13 Nov 2015 19:55:20 + as excerpted:
> receive is implemented almost exclusively in userspace, with only a
> couple of ioctls for mucking around with the UUIDs at the end.
I wasn't aware of that and had assumed kernel space. Apart from the
topic of discussion here,
Marc MERLIN posted on Fri, 13 Nov 2015 12:01:58 -0800 as excerpted:
> I'm still seeing 39GB used for 28GB of actual data, but I definitely
> fixed one bit already thanks to you.
For the data side, I think I understand what's going on with the space,
but am not in sufficient mastery of the concep
Hi Linus,
My for-linus-4.4 branch is ready for pulling:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git
for-linus-4.4
Some of this got cherry-picked from a github repo this week, but I
verified the patches. We have three small scrub cleanups and a
collection of fixes.
Zhao
On 2015-11-13 14:55, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 02:40:44PM -0500, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2015-11-13 13:42, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 01:10:12PM -0500, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2015-11-13 12:30, Vedran Vucic wrote:
Hello,
Here are outputs of commands
Hello,
My system is on laptop that is not heavy duty such as servers.
openSuse 13.2 was installed approx 2 months ago so the issue did not
appear due to longterm lack of administration or maintenance.
Please let me know if I can help in any other way.
Thanks,
vedran
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 9:15
Hello,
I guess that it might be bug in kernel.
I was successful this:
btrfs balance start / -dusage=50 -musage=35
musage above 35 caused ENOSPC message. Otherwise it was good.
Thanks on support,
vedran
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Hugo Mills wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 01:10:12PM -050
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 07:45:21PM +, Duncan wrote:
> Marc MERLIN posted on Fri, 13 Nov 2015 09:41:01 -0800 as excerpted:
>
> > Any ideas?
>
> Without addressing the main question, a couple targets of opportunity:
>
> 1) A quick balance with -mprofiles=single should kill those unused single
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 02:40:44PM -0500, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
> On 2015-11-13 13:42, Hugo Mills wrote:
> >On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 01:10:12PM -0500, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
> >>On 2015-11-13 12:30, Vedran Vucic wrote:
> >>>Hello,
> >>>
> >>>Here are outputs of commands as you requested:
>
Marc MERLIN posted on Fri, 13 Nov 2015 09:41:01 -0800 as excerpted:
> Any ideas?
Without addressing the main question, a couple targets of opportunity:
1) A quick balance with -mprofiles=single should kill those unused single
metadata and system mkfs.btrfs legacies so you don't have to see them
On 2015-11-13 13:42, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 01:10:12PM -0500, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2015-11-13 12:30, Vedran Vucic wrote:
Hello,
Here are outputs of commands as you requested:
btrfs fi df /
Data, single: total=8.00GiB, used=7.71GiB
System, DUP: total=32.00MiB, used
Am 13.11.2015 um 16:33 schrieb Filipe Manana:
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG
wrote:
Seen today:
[150110.712196] [ cut here ]
[150110.776995] kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/inode.c:3230!
[150110.841067] invalid opcode: [#1] SMP
[150110.90447
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 01:10:12PM -0500, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
> On 2015-11-13 12:30, Vedran Vucic wrote:
> >Hello,
> >
> >Here are outputs of commands as you requested:
> > btrfs fi df /
> >Data, single: total=8.00GiB, used=7.71GiB
> >System, DUP: total=32.00MiB, used=16.00KiB
> >Metadata,
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 06:12:28AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 01:08:22AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > I think I got all the tests renumbered correctly and fixed all the other
> > bugs.
> > I'd like to send the updated patchpile to Dave tomorrow, but if you have
root@polgara:/mnt/btrfs_root# du -sh *
28G @
28G @_hourly.20151113_08:04:01
4.0K@_last
4.0K@_last_rw
28G @_rw.20151113_00:02:01
root@polgara:/mnt/btrfs_root# df -h .
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/sdb556G 40G 5.4G 89% /mnt/btrfs_root
root@polg
On 2015-11-13 12:30, Vedran Vucic wrote:
Hello,
Here are outputs of commands as you requested:
btrfs fi df /
Data, single: total=8.00GiB, used=7.71GiB
System, DUP: total=32.00MiB, used=16.00KiB
Metadata, DUP: total=1.12GiB, used=377.25MiB
GlobalReserve, single: total=128.00MiB, used=0.00B
btr
Helo,
Yes, Illegal one is deleted. Sorry it was my typo.
Thanks,
vedran
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Henk Slager wrote:
> Vedran,
>
> I see 2 snapshot numbers (748 and 741), maybe copy-paste error or
> typo, but can you confirm that the illegal one is deleted?
>
> /Henk
>
> On Fri, Nov 13,
Vedran,
I see 2 snapshot numbers (748 and 741), maybe copy-paste error or
typo, but can you confirm that the illegal one is deleted?
/Henk
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Vedran Vucic wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Here are outputs of commands as you requested:
> btrfs fi df /
> Data, single: total=8.00
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 10:11:37PM +0800, Zhao Lei wrote:
> Current code don't support dup profile in single device, except it
> is in mixed mode, because following reason:
> 1: In some ssd with deduplication function, it have no effect.
> 2: For a physical device, it the entire disk broken, -d dup
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 03:20:30PM +, fdman...@kernel.org wrote:
> From: Filipe Manana
>
> The following pair of changes fix an issue observed in a production
> environment where any file operations done by a package manager failed
> with ENOSPC. Forcing a commit of the current transaction (t
Hello,
Here are outputs of commands as you requested:
btrfs fi df /
Data, single: total=8.00GiB, used=7.71GiB
System, DUP: total=32.00MiB, used=16.00KiB
Metadata, DUP: total=1.12GiB, used=377.25MiB
GlobalReserve, single: total=128.00MiB, used=0.00B
btrfs fi show
Label: none uuid: d6934db3-3ac9-
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 10:10:51AM +0100, Florian Margaine wrote:
> New patch is attached.
Applied with some modifications, thanks.
> +/*
> + * Takes a loop device path (e.g. /dev/loop0) and returns
> + * the associated file (e.g. /images/my_btrfs.img) using
> + * loopdev API
> + */
> +static int
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 10:53:41AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Add support to search chunk root, as we only need to search tree roots
> in system chunk, which should be very easy to add, just iterate in
> system chunks.
>
> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo
Applied, thanks. I've changed the prefixes to 'bt
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 11:44:54AM +0800, Zhao Lei wrote:
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] btrfs-progs: cmds-device: use warning/error for
> > error
> > message
> > Hope you could do this/apply on top of patch set
> >
> > "Introduce device delete by devid"
> >
> > I vaguely remember that patchse
On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 05:59:38PM +0800, Zhao Lei wrote:
> 1: Remove more_than_one variant, use iterator's value instead
> 2: Remove "out" mark, use break instead.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zhao Lei
Applied, thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body
On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 05:59:37PM +0800, Zhao Lei wrote:
> Switch to common warning()/error() for cmds-device.c.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zhao Lei
Applied, thanks. I did some tweaks so the messages look consistent and
adjusted indentation of some lines, dunno why it's aligned to " instead
of one tab.
On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 05:06:53PM +0800, Zhao Lei wrote:
> periodic.timer_fd's value is 0 on inititlize-failed case,
> if no value-checking before read(), the code will run as
> read(STDIN).
>
> This patch fixed above case.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zhao Lei
Applied, thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from th
On 2015-11-13 11:12, Vedran Vucic wrote:
Hello,
I succeeded to delete illegal snapshot with command:
btrfs subvolume delete /.snapshots/741/snapshot
When I have done
btrfs balance / -dusage=0 -musage=0
increasing value up to 4o I did not have issues.
But on value 4- for-dusage= and -musage=
I go
Hi,
while evaluating btrfs for production use I ended up with a degraded
two-disk RAID1 with one disk missing, and wanted to perform a "btrfs
replace" to rebuild the RAID1. However, the replace operation causes
most of my userland to be OOM-killed and aborts eventually, at about
30% progress, on a
Hello,
I succeeded to delete illegal snapshot with command:
btrfs subvolume delete /.snapshots/741/snapshot
When I have done
btrfs balance / -dusage=0 -musage=0
increasing value up to 4o I did not have issues.
But on value 4- for-dusage= and -musage=
I got message that there is no space left on di
On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 04:33:03PM +0100, Michael Lass wrote:
> In current versions of util-linux the buffer passed to
> blkid_devno_to_wholedisk
> has to be sufficiently large to not only hold the device name but the complete
> target of the /sys/dev/block/ symlink. This was changed only recently
On 2015-11-13 09:51, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Dmitry Katsubo wrote:
If so then I
think this is a trap, and mkfs.btrfs should at least warn (or require
--force) if two partitions are on the same drive for raid1/raid5/raid10.
Does mdadm warn in the same situation? L
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG
wrote:
>
> Seen today:
>
> [150110.712196] [ cut here ]
> [150110.776995] kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/inode.c:3230!
> [150110.841067] invalid opcode: [#1] SMP
> [150110.904472] Modules linked in: dm_mod netconsol
On 2015-11-13 09:11, Zhao Lei wrote:
Current code don't support dup profile in single device, except it
is in mixed mode, because following reason:
1: In some ssd with deduplication function, it have no effect.
2: For a physical device, it the entire disk broken, -d dup can
not help.
3: Half
From: Filipe Manana
It's possible to reach a state where the cleaner kthread isn't able to
start a transaction to delete an unused block group due to lack of enough
free metadata space and due to lack of unallocated device space to allocate
a new metadata block group as well. If this happens try
From: Filipe Manana
We were using only 1 transaction unit when attempting to delete an unused
block group but in reality we need 3 units. We were accounting only for
the addition of the orphan item (for the block group's free space cache
inode) but we were not accounting that we need to delete on
From: Filipe Manana
The following pair of changes fix an issue observed in a production
environment where any file operations done by a package manager failed
with ENOSPC. Forcing a commit of the current transaction (through "sync")
didn't help, a balance operation with the filters -dusage=0 didn
On Sat, Nov 07, 2015 at 01:26:24AM +0100, Alexander Fougner wrote:
> Device deletion procedures ensures the device is a block device.
> This patch introduces 'missing' as keyword again, correctly
> passing it on to the kernel instead of complaining about
> 'missing' not being a block device.
>
> S
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Dmitry Katsubo wrote:
> On 2015-11-12 13:47, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
>>> That's a pretty unusual setup, so I'm not surprised there's no quick and
>>> easy answer. The best solution in my opinion would be to shuffle your
>>> partitions around and combine sda3 an
Current code don't support dup profile in single device, except it
is in mixed mode, because following reason:
1: In some ssd with deduplication function, it have no effect.
2: For a physical device, it the entire disk broken, -d dup can
not help.
3: Half performance comparing with single profil
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 01:08:22AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> I think I got all the tests renumbered correctly and fixed all the other bugs.
> I'd like to send the updated patchpile to Dave tomorrow, but if you have a few
> spare cycles would you mind giving this a quick test to make sure I fi
On 11/13/15 13:44, David Sterba wrote:
> The value of ctx->pos in the last readdir call is supposed to be set to
> INT_MAX due to 32bit compatibility, unless 'pos' is intentially set to a
> larger value, then it's LLONG_MAX.
>
> There's a report from PaX SIZE_OVERFLOW plugin that "ctx->pos++"
> ov
The value of ctx->pos in the last readdir call is supposed to be set to
INT_MAX due to 32bit compatibility, unless 'pos' is intentially set to a
larger value, then it's LLONG_MAX.
There's a report from PaX SIZE_OVERFLOW plugin that "ctx->pos++"
overflows (https://forums.grsecurity.net/viewtopic.ph
On 2015-11-13 05:17, Anand Jain wrote:
Thanks for the comments.
Sorry for the delay.
Trying to find out if there is any pending concerns...
FWIW, I'm planning on setting up a VM to test this over the weekend (I
would have already, but I've been kind of busy at work this week), so
I'll ho
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Zhao Lei wrote:
> xfstests/011 failed in node with small_size filesystem.
> Can be reproduced by following script:
> DEV_LIST="/dev/vdd /dev/vde"
> DEV_REPLACE="/dev/vdf"
>
> do_test()
> {
> local mkfs_opt="$1"
> local size="$2"
>
> dmesg
Hi,
I attached an 3TB drive to my ODroid, created a BTRFS FS on it an copied
some data on it. (with RSYNC)
uname -a:
Linux odroid 3.10.92-63 #1 SMP PREEMPT Wed Nov 11 16:48:34 BRST 2015
armv7l armv7l armv7l GNU/Linux
btrfs fi show /dev/sdc1:
Label: none uuid: b56f091d-a65e-4c3b-8bb5-62fe64a
xfstests/011 failed in node with small_size filesystem.
Can be reproduced by following script:
DEV_LIST="/dev/vdd /dev/vde"
DEV_REPLACE="/dev/vdf"
do_test()
{
local mkfs_opt="$1"
local size="$2"
dmesg -c >/dev/null
umount $SCRATCH_MNT &>/dev/null
echo mkfs.
I just got the backup disk back, also btrfs, which was made via
send/receive...
It has the same errors during fsck.
The main disk still hasn't found any file (apart from a few, others for
which none of my hash sums were stored at all) that doesn't verify.
So I guess there's definitely some bug i
Thanks for commenting.
I'm sorry but I didn't quite see the benefit of a spare device.
Aside from what Duncan said (and I happen to agree with him), there is
also the fact that hot-spares are (at least traditionally in most RAID
systems) usually used with RAID5 or RAID6 (or some other parity
Thanks for comments.
On 11/13/2015 03:21 AM, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
On 2015-11-09 11:56, Anand Jain wrote:
These set of patches provides btrfs hot spare and auto replace support
for you review and comments.
Hi Anand,
is there any reason to put this kind of logic in the kernel space ?
I
Thanks for the comments.
Let's take the following example:
1) 2 RAID1 + 1 spare
(A + B) + C
2) 3 RAID1
(A + B + C)
At least in normal operation case, case 1) makes device C useless, and
Yes.
For case 2), we can just relocate and recover the bad chunks in B.
It it should only
Thanks for the comments.
Sorry for the delay.
Trying to find out if there is any pending concerns...
Hopefully, per-filesystem hot-spares will be a high priority too, as
that type of usage is pretty much required for many enterprise type
uses, although that doesn't need to be the same code
On Fri, 2015-11-13 at 07:05 +, Duncan wrote:
> 8 TiB disks -- are those the disk-managed SMR "archive" disks I've
> read
> about on a number of threads?
Yes... but...
> If so, that hardware is almost certainly the cause, as they're known
> to
> be problematic on current kernels. While most
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 09:36:35AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 09:34:27AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > Bleargh, _require_*_dedupe forgot to check for ENOTTY output, so all the
> > dedupe
> > tests should have _notrun.
> >
> > Also, generic/806 was calling the wr
On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 07:17:08AM +0800, Peng Tao wrote:
> To tell file system not to return partial success in the
> .copy_file_range method. This is useful to implement the
> clone (or reflink) functionality.
The return value is only part of it, the other part is to
make it atomic. Thus I don'
77 matches
Mail list logo
