Scotty Edmonds wrote on 2015/11/17 07:09 +:
This was one of the first things I tried actually, this was the result.
[root@rockstor ~]# btrfs rescue chunk-recover -y /dev/sdg
Scanning: DONE in dev0, DONE in dev1, DONE in dev2, DONE in dev3, DONE in dev4
This was one of the first things I tried actually, this was the result.
[root@rockstor ~]# btrfs rescue chunk-recover -y /dev/sdg
Scanning: DONE in dev0, DONE in dev1, DONE in dev2, DONE in dev3, DONE in dev4
Floating point
exception
B.H.
Hello.
I have btrfs volume used for backups. The configuration is as follows:
# uname -a
Linux yemot-4u 4.2.5-040205-generic #201510270124 SMP Tue Oct 27
01:25:49 UTC 2015 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
# btrfs --version
btrfs-progs v4.2.3
The volume is on top of 2 MD RAID10 arrays, 12TB
David Sterba wrote on 2015/11/16 18:46 +0100:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 02:27:41PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
[[FIX IDEA]]
1. Too many patches
Not percieved as a problem as long as the patches are well separated and
reviewable. If you prefer reasonably many preparatory and trivial
patches, then b
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 07:58:45AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 01:36:50PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > 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 entr
On 11/16/2015 09:41 PM, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2015-11-09 05:56, Anand Jain wrote:
These set of patches provides btrfs hot spare and auto replace support
for you review and comments.
First, here below are the simple example steps to configure the same:
Add a spare device:
btrfs s
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 01:36:50PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> 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
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 02:27:41PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> [[FIX IDEA]]
> 1. Too many patches
Not percieved as a problem as long as the patches are well separated and
reviewable. If you prefer reasonably many preparatory and trivial
patches, then be it.
> 2. superblock reserve is d*mning hard,
I've accidentally picked an already used number for the enhanced usage
filter represented by BTRFS_BALANCE_ARGS_USAGE_RANGE, clashing with
BTRFS_BALANCE_ARGS_CONVERT. Introduced during the development phase,
no backward compatibility issues.
Reported-by: Holger Hoffstätte
Reported-by: Dan Carpent
On 2015-11-09 05:56, Anand Jain wrote:
These set of patches provides btrfs hot spare and auto replace support
for you review and comments.
First, here below are the simple example steps to configure the same:
Add a spare device:
btrfs spare add /dev/sde -f
OR if there is a spare device wh
Hi,
the btrfs-progs 4.3.1 have been released.
* fixes
* device delete: recognize 'missing' again
* mkfs: long names are not trimmed when doing ssd check
* support partitioned loop devices
* other
* replace several mallocs with on-stack variables
* more memory allocation failure handlin
On 2015-11-13 19:54, Qu Wenruo wrote:
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
On 2015-11-14 09:11, CHENG Yuk-Pong, Daniel wrote:
Hi List,
I have read the Gotcha[1] page:
Files with a lot of random writes can become heavily fragmented
(1+ extents) causing trashing on HDDs and excessive multi-second
spikes of CPU load on systems with an SSD or **large amount a RA
Hi, Filipe Manana
> -Original Message-
> From: Filipe Manana [mailto:fdman...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 6:57 PM
> To: Zhao Lei
> Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Continue replace when set_block_ro failed
>
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:44 AM
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Zhao Lei wrote:
> Hi, Filipe Manana
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: linux-btrfs-ow...@vger.kernel.org
>> [mailto:linux-btrfs-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Filipe Manana
>> Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 6:27 PM
>> To: Zhao Lei
>> Cc: linux-btrfs@v
Hi, Filipe Manana
> -Original Message-
> From: linux-btrfs-ow...@vger.kernel.org
> [mailto:linux-btrfs-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Filipe Manana
> Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 6:27 PM
> To: Zhao Lei
> Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Continue replac
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Zhao Lei wrote:
> Hi, Filipe Manana
>
> Thanks for review.
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Filipe Manana [mailto:fdman...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 8:02 PM
>> To: Zhao Lei
>> Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] btr
Hi, Filipe Manana
Thanks for review.
> -Original Message-
> From: Filipe Manana [mailto:fdman...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 8:02 PM
> To: Zhao Lei
> Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Continue replace when set_block_ro failed
>
> On Fri, Nov
On Monday 16 Nov 2015 12:38:27 Chandan Rajendra wrote:
> Btrfs assumes block size to be the same as the machine's page
> size. This would mean that a Btrfs instance created on a 4k page size
> machine (e.g. x86) will not be mountable on machines with larger page
> sizes (e.g. PPC64/AARCH64). This p
19 matches
Mail list logo
