Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Zach Fuller posted on Thu, 24 Dec 2015 13:15:22 -0600 as excerpted:
>
> > I am currently running btrfs on a 2TB GPT drive. The drive is working
> > fine, still mounts correctly, and I have experienced no data corruption.
> > Whenever I run "btrfs check" on t
Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> covici posted on Thu, 24 Dec 2015 05:56:22 -0500 as excerpted:
>
> > Hi. I was making a few file systems on my ssd drives (using lvm on top)
> > and noticed that the ssd was not detected. The only thing that happened
> > is that the metadata is duplicated.
tree: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git
integration-4.5
head: 140e639f1a3ff052c3921818e2120fdfa4427681
commit: f7d3d2f99eeaa9f5c111965b1516972f4fc5e449 [34/41] Merge branch
'freespace-tree' into for-linus-4.5
config: i386-randconfig-x006-1106 (attached
jwalmer posted on Thu, 24 Dec 2015 08:56:15 -0500 as excerpted:
> Thanks for the speedy replies! Earlier Duncan said, "there's still no
> user-side multi-device filesystem health monitoring application." I'm
> mostly worried about device errors/failures, not my filesystem health.
EUNFORESEEN_AMBI
Chris Murphy posted on Thu, 24 Dec 2015 13:57:35 -0700 as excerpted:
>> All this makes me ask why? Why implement Raid10 in this non-standard
>> fashion and create this mess of compromise?
>
> Because it was a straightforward extension of how the file system
> already behaves. To implement drive
Zach Fuller posted on Thu, 24 Dec 2015 13:15:22 -0600 as excerpted:
> I am currently running btrfs on a 2TB GPT drive. The drive is working
> fine, still mounts correctly, and I have experienced no data corruption.
> Whenever I run "btrfs check" on the drive, it returns 100,000+ messages
> stating
covici posted on Thu, 24 Dec 2015 05:56:22 -0500 as excerpted:
> Hi. I was making a few file systems on my ssd drives (using lvm on top)
> and noticed that the ssd was not detected. The only thing that happened
> is that the metadata is duplicated. Is this a problem, or a waste of
> space? If
Hey.
There was a patch for that issue.
Simply try that and when it goes away with it, there's probably no further
reason to worry.
Cheers,
Chris.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at
On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Donald Pearson
wrote:
> Got it. I'm not the biggest fan of mixing mdraid with btrfs raid in
> order to work around deficiencies. Hopefully in the future btrfs will
> allow me to select my mirror groups.
As far as I know, mdadm -l raid10 works this same way, you
Hi all.
I am searching a project to start contribute to btrfs and I would like
to know if there is anyone working on "a library covering 'btrfs'
functionality". I am confused because I found "libbtrfs.so.0.1" and
"libbtrfs.a" when we compile the btrfs-progs and I would like to know
if these libs ar
I am currently running btrfs on a 2TB GPT drive. The drive is working
fine, still mounts correctly, and I have experienced no data
corruption. Whenever I run "btrfs check" on the drive, it returns
100,000+ messages stating "bad extent [###, ###), type mismatch with
chunk". Whenever I try to run "bt
W dniu 24.12.2015 o 16:29, Neuer User pisze:
Am 24.12.2015 um 15:56 schrieb Piotr Pawłow:
Hello,
- both hdd and ssd in one LVM VG
- one LV on each hdd, containing a btrfs filesystem
- both btrfs LV configured as RAID1
- the single SDD used as a LVM cache device for both HDD LVs to speed up
rand
On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Donald Pearson posted on Wed, 23 Dec 2015 09:53:41 -0600 as excerpted:
>
>> Additionally real Raid10 will run circles around what BTRFS is doing in
>> terms of performance. In the 20 drive array you're striping across 10
>> dr
Am 24.12.2015 um 15:56 schrieb Piotr Pawłow:
> Hello,
>> - both hdd and ssd in one LVM VG
>> - one LV on each hdd, containing a btrfs filesystem
>> - both btrfs LV configured as RAID1
>> - the single SDD used as a LVM cache device for both HDD LVs to speed up
>> random access, where possible
>
> I
Am 24.12.2015 um 03:04 schrieb Duncan:
I had a look at bcache, but focused on lvmcache mainly because of the
flexibility it offers. It can be easily added and removed. For LVM it is
just another LV, so all the LVM magic applies.
But thanks, I should take another look at bcache.
> I'll let other
Am 23.12.2015 um 21:56 schrieb Chris Murphy:
> Btrfs always writes to the 'cache LV' and then it's up to lvmcache to
> determine how and when things are written to the 'cache pool LV' vs
> the 'origin LV' and I have no idea if there's a case with writeback
> mode where things write to the SSD and o
Hello,
- both hdd and ssd in one LVM VG
- one LV on each hdd, containing a btrfs filesystem
- both btrfs LV configured as RAID1
- the single SDD used as a LVM cache device for both HDD LVs to speed up
random access, where possible
I have a setup like this for my /home. It works but it's a crapp
Thanks for the speedy replies! Earlier Duncan said, "there's still no user-side
multi-device filesystem health monitoring application." I'm mostly worried
about device errors/failures, not my filesystem health. Since my implimentation
of btrfs will be on a storage array, I'm not going to be doin
From: Filipe Manana
Commit 27d077ec0bda (common: use mount/umount helpers everywhere) made
a few btrfs test fail for 2 different reasons:
1) Some tests (btrfs/029 and btrfs/031) use $SCRATCH_MNT as a mount
point for some subvolume created in $TEST_DEV, therefore calling
_scratch_unmount do
From: Filipe Manana
The test was using $SCRATCH_MNT as a mountpoint for $SCRATCH_DEV, which
is counter intuitive and not expected by the fstests framework - this
made the test fail after commit 27d077ec0bda (common: use mount/umount
helpers everywhere). So rewrite the test to use the scratch devi
From: Filipe Manana
The test was using $SCRATCH_MNT as a mountpoint for $SCRATCH_DEV, which
is counter intuitive and not expected by the fstests framework - this
made the test fail after commit 27d077ec0bda (common: use mount/umount
helpers everywhere). So rewrite the test to use the scratch devi
From: Filipe Manana
If the test fails after removing a device and before adding it back, it
attempts to add back the device in its _cleanup() function. However this
is broken because the device identifier is stored in a variable local to
the function _test_replace() and not in a global variable.
On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 11:49 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 02:22:40AM +, fdman...@kernel.org wrote:
>> From: Filipe Manana
>>
>> Commit 27d077ec0bda (common: use mount/umount helpers everywhere) made
>> a few btrfs test fail for 2 different reasons:
>>
>> 1) Some tests (b
Le jeudi 24 décembre 2015, 10:29:02 CET Hugo Mills a écrit :
>
>systemd is now probing for qgroups on startup. The message is
> simply indicating that qgroups are not enabled on the FS. It's harmless.
Thanks Hugo. Then it’s harmless but worrying at 1st sight ;-)
Kind regards.
--
Swâmi Petar
Hi. I was making a few file systems on my ssd drives (using lvm on top)
and noticed that the ssd was not detected. The only thing that happened
is that the metadata is duplicated. Is this a problem, or a waste of
space? If I wanted to remake the file systems -- which I don't want to
do unless n
Duncan wrote:
So 4.4 is what I'd consider the magical raid56-stability release, and
I'd actually expect the wiki to be updated shortly thereafter, tho 4.4
is close enough now, and there have been no major raid56 bugs reported
in the 4.3 and 4.4 cycles, that arguably the wiki's raid56 status
co
On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 10:04:48AM +0100, Swâmi Petaramesh wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I’m running Arch Linux with kernel 4.2.5-1-ARCH
>
> Since a few days, I have noticed a series of messages :
>
> « BTRFS: could not find root 8 »
>
> During boot.
systemd is now probing for qgroups on startup.
Hi there,
I’m running Arch Linux with kernel 4.2.5-1-ARCH
Since a few days, I have noticed a series of messages :
« BTRFS: could not find root 8 »
During boot.
Besides that, the system behaves normally, and I have no clue…
Here is an extract of the relevant parts of my dmesg :
[1.515764]
28 matches
Mail list logo
