Jérôme Poulin posted on Sun, 14 Feb 2016 23:52:18 -0500 as excerpted:
> I have encountered a weird out of memory problem using BTRFS,
> snapshots and duperemove.
> The workload is described as:
> - Lots of static (400G/1T) data which was deduplicated using duperemove
> which saved about 50GB.
> -
There are some BUG_ON()'s after kmalloc() as follows.
=
foo = kmalloc();
BUG_ON(!foo); /* -ENOMEM case */
=
A Docker + memory cgroup user hit these BUG_ON()s.
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=112101
Since it's very hard to handle these ENOMEMs properly,
preventing these kma
Hello everyone,
I have encountered a weird out of memory problem using BTRFS,
snapshots and duperemove.
The workload is described as:
- Lots of static (400G/1T) data which was deduplicated using
duperemove which saved about 50GB.
- Backups are saved to the BTRFS every 2 days, backup take about 2 h
Hi, David Sterba
Thanks for notice me, sorry for reply late.
> From: David Sterba [mailto:dste...@suse.cz]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 6:14 PM
> To: Zhao Lei
> Cc: 'Chris Mason' ; 'btrfs'
> Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Fujitsu for 4.5
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 05:28:12PM +0800, Zhao Lei
Feb 14 18:30:21 specialbrew kernel: [27576201.178630] BTRFS: bdev /dev/sdh
errs: wr 128, rd 8, flush 2, corrupt 0, gen 0
Feb 14 18:30:21 specialbrew kernel: [27576201.309583] BTRFS: lost page write
due to I/O error on /dev/sdh
Feb 14 18:30:21 specialbrew kernel: [27576201.315761] BTRFS: bdev
Marc MERLIN wrote on 2016/02/14 09:26 -0800:
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 09:26:28AM -0800, Marc MERLIN wrote:
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 08:33:11AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
There is still a last chance.
If btrfsck still report original error about "bad file extent" in root:
45851/45852/...
Btrfs-d
Hi Chris,
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 04:49:29PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Andy Smith wrote:
> > $ sudo btrfs dev remove /dev/sdh /srv/tank
> > ERROR: not a block device: /dev/sdh
>
>
> Since now it's a missing device, it should be
>
> sudo btrfs device remove m
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Andy Smith wrote:
>
> So, ideally I'd like to remove the missing device sdh (id 2) to have
> redundant copies of the data until I can insert a new drive. But
> "remove" doesn't seem to want to work:
>
> $ sudo btrfs dev remove /dev/sdh /srv/tank
> ERROR: not a blo
On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 13:32:24 -0800
Liu Bo wrote:
> Hi Mike,
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 12:23:16AM +0500, Михаил Гаврилов wrote:
> > Sorry, I have not yet had time to apply your patch.
> >
> > And get hang again when launch web browser.
> >
> > Here new logs:
> > http://btrfs.sy24.ru/kernel-sysr
Hi,
One of my drives died earlier in a fairly emphatic way in that not
only did it show IO errors and got removed as a device by the
kernel, but it was also making audible grinding/screeching noises
until I hot unplugged it.
Feb 14 18:29:36 specialbrew kernel: [27576156.070961] ata6.15: SATA link
Hi Mike,
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 12:23:16AM +0500, Михаил Гаврилов wrote:
> Sorry, I have not yet had time to apply your patch.
>
> And get hang again when launch web browser.
>
> Here new logs: http://btrfs.sy24.ru/kernel-sysrqw-btrfscleaner770blocked-3.txt
The logs show,
every hung process is
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 01:43:05PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
> Use all defaults for everything. Anything new by show should do the
> right thing including 4096 byte alignment.
>
> gargamel:~# cryptsetup luksDump /dev/md8
> [snip]
> Payload offset: 3072
>
> This is a bit weird because the default
Hi,
I'm using this Ruby script to maintain my BTRFS filesystems and try to
avoid them getting in a position where they can't allocate space even
though there is still plenty of it.
http://pastebin.com/39567Dun
It seems to work well (it maintains dozens of BTRFS filesystems, running
balance on th
Use all defaults for everything. Anything new by show should do the
right thing including 4096 byte alignment.
gargamel:~# cryptsetup luksDump /dev/md8
[snip]
Payload offset: 3072
This is a bit weird because the default is 4096. But because the LUKS
offset (header + payload + extra unused space)
On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 12:28:13PM +, Duncan wrote:
> Marc MERLIN posted on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 19:28:46 -0800 as excerpted:
>
> > btrfs send lets you keep COW blocks within a subvolume.
> > But if I have lots of backups where subvolumes have shared data, and I
> > need to migrate this to a new f
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 09:26:28AM -0800, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 08:33:11AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> > There is still a last chance.
> >
> > If btrfsck still report original error about "bad file extent" in root:
> > 45851/45852/...
> > Btrfs-debug-tree may provide useful
>> > Do you think there is still a chance to recover those files?
>>
>> You can use btrfs restore to get files off a damaged fs.
>
> This however does work - thank you!
> Now since I'm a bit short on disc space, can I remove the disc that
> previously disappeared (and thus doesn't have all the
>
Henk Slager gmail.com> writes:
> You could use 1-time mount option clear_cache, then mount normally and
> cache will be rebuild automatically (but also corrected if you don't
> clear it)
This didn't help, gave me
[ 316.111596] BTRFS info (device sda): force clearing of disk cache
[ 316.111605
18 matches
Mail list logo
