Re: bad extent [5993525264384, 5993525280768), type mismatch with chunk

Ángel González wrote on 2016/02/16 23:21 +0100: Which should be my next steps? Try btrfs-progs 4.4 to see if all these false alert goes a way. Thanks, Qu Thanks! Those "errors" are indeed gone after updating btrfs-progs from 4.3.1 to 4.4. Sorry for the fuss. It's strange though if

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Avoid BUG_ON()s because of ENOMEM caused by kmalloc() failure

On 2016/02/16 2:53, David Sterba wrote: On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 02:38:09PM +0900, Satoru Takeuchi wrote: 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.

Re: RAID 6 full, but there is still space left on some devices

Dan Blazejewski posted on Tue, 16 Feb 2016 15:20:12 -0500 as excerpted: > A little background: I started using BTRFS over a year ago, in RAID 1 > with mixed size drives. A few months ago, I started replacing the disks > with 4 TB drives, and eventually switched over to RAID 6. I am currently >

Send receive errors

Hello, I use snapshots as backups, and send them to other locations with a parent. It's very hit or miss if any one of them will actual work. An example of the latest error: ERROR: rmdir usr/lib/modules/4.3.3.201512282134-1-grsec/build/.tmp_versions failed: No such file or directory Typically

Re: bad extent [5993525264384, 5993525280768), type mismatch with chunk

> > Which should be my next steps? > > > > Try btrfs-progs 4.4 to see if all these false alert goes a way. > > Thanks, > Qu Thanks! Those "errors" are indeed gone after updating btrfs-progs from 4.3.1 to 4.4. Sorry for the fuss. It's strange though if it was supposed to only happen with 

RAID 6 full, but there is still space left on some devices

Hello, I've searched high and low about my issue, but have been unable to turn up anything like what I'm seeing right now. A little background: I started using BTRFS over a year ago, in RAID 1 with mixed size drives. A few months ago, I started replacing the disks with 4 TB drives, and

Re: [Docs]? Only one Subvolume with DUP (or different parameters)?

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 08:25:47PM +0100, Christian Völker wrote: > Hi Guys, > > sorry for the simple question and I assume every developer here laughs > about this question. > > Anyway: > > I have read loads of documents but did not find an answer for sure. Even > though I assume I am right. >

[Docs]? Only one Subvolume with DUP (or different parameters)?

Hi Guys, sorry for the simple question and I assume every developer here laughs about this question. Anyway: I have read loads of documents but did not find an answer for sure. Even though I assume I am right. On a btrfs filesystem created; is it possible to have subvolumes with data

Re: BZ#101951, Overlayfs on top of btrfs causes kernel oops + freeze

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Colin Ian King wrote: > On 16/02/16 15:51, Filipe Manana wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 3:38 PM, Colin Ian King >> wrote: >>> Hi there, >>> >>> bug: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101951 and also

Re: BZ#101951, Overlayfs on top of btrfs causes kernel oops + freeze

On 16/02/16 16:11, Filipe Manana wrote: > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Colin Ian King > wrote: >> On 16/02/16 15:51, Filipe Manana wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 3:38 PM, Colin Ian King >>> wrote: Hi there, bug:

Re: BZ#101951, Overlayfs on top of btrfs causes kernel oops + freeze

On 16/02/16 15:51, Filipe Manana wrote: > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 3:38 PM, Colin Ian King > wrote: >> Hi there, >> >> bug: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101951 and also >> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1532145 >> >> Commit

Re: BZ#101951, Overlayfs on top of btrfs causes kernel oops + freeze

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 3:38 PM, Colin Ian King wrote: > Hi there, > > bug: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101951 and also > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1532145 > > Commit 4bacc9c9234c7c8eec44f5ed4e960d9f96fa0f01 ("overlayfs: Make

BZ#101951, Overlayfs on top of btrfs causes kernel oops + freeze

Hi there, bug: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101951 and also https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1532145 Commit 4bacc9c9234c7c8eec44f5ed4e960d9f96fa0f01 ("overlayfs: Make f_path always point to the overlay and f_inode to the underlay") resulted in an issue when

[GIT PULL] Btrfs fix for direct IO error reporting

From: Filipe Manana Hi Chris, Please consider the following fix for an upcoming 4.5 release candidate. It fixes a problem where if the bio for a direct IO request fails, we end reporting success to userspace. For example, for a direct IO write of 64K, if the block layer

[PATCH v2] Btrfs: fix direct IO requests not reporting IO error to user space

From: Filipe Manana If a bio for a direct IO request fails, we were not setting the error in the parent bio (the main DIO bio), making us not return the error to user space in btrfs_direct_IO(), that is, it made __blockdev_direct_IO() return the number of bytes issued for IO

Deadlock while removing device, kernel 4.4.1

This is a test system so I'm reporting in case this is unknown but no data at risk. This filesystem was created with a device (well, actually partition) /dev/sdb3, then /dev/sdc{2,3,4} were added, and finally I attempted to remove /dev/sdb3. No profiles were passed at any point. Briefly

Re: Unable to mount BTRFS home dir anymore

Bhasker C V posted on Tue, 16 Feb 2016 08:24:24 +0100 as excerpted: > Help with recovery of BTRFS home directory data. > I have been using BTRFS happily for an year now. It has worked across > power failures and many such situations. > > Last week, however, the filesystem could not be mounted

Re: [GIT PULL] Fujitsu for 4.5

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:07:01PM +0800, Zhao Lei wrote: > 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'

Re: [PATCH 15/15] btrfs: rename flags for vol args v2

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 05:18:12PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > > Just checked next/delete-by-id-v3. > You may consider to update progs as well. > > Reviewed-by: Anand Jain Thanks for the reviews, I'll update the patches and push to next. Progs update will follow. --

Re: [PATCH 15/15] btrfs: rename flags for vol args v2

.. On 02/16/2016 01:34 AM, David Sterba wrote: Rename BTRFS_DEVICE_BY_ID so it's more descriptive that we specify the device by id, it'll be part of the public API. The mask of supported flags is also renamed, only for internal use. The error code for unknown flags is EOPNOTSUPP, fixed.

Re: [PATCH 14/15] btrfs: rename btrfs_find_device_by_user_input

Reviewed-by: Anand Jain Thanks, Anand On 02/16/2016 01:34 AM, David Sterba wrote: For clarity how we are going to find the device, let's call it a device specifier, devspec for short. Also rename the arguments that are a leftover from previous function purpose.

Re: [PATCH 13/15] btrfs: use existing device constraints table btrfs_raid_array

yep required optimization. Deleting from my todo list. Reviewed-by: Anand Jain On 02/16/2016 01:34 AM, David Sterba wrote: We should avoid duplicating the device constraints, let's use the btrfs_raid_array in btrfs_check_raid_min_devices. Signed-off-by: David Sterba

Re: Major HDD performance degradation on btrfs receive

Nazar Mokrynskyi posted on Tue, 16 Feb 2016 05:44:30 +0100 as excerpted: > I have 2 SSD with BTRFS filesystem (RAID) on them and several > subvolumes. Each 15 minutes I'm creating read-only snapshot of > subvolumes /root, /home and /web inside /backup. > After this I'm searching for last common

Re: [PATCH 12/15] btrfs: indtroduce raid-type to error-code table, for minimum device constraint

Nice fix. thanks Reviewed-by: Anand Jain On 02/16/2016 01:34 AM, David Sterba wrote: Signed-off-by: David Sterba --- fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 15 +++ fs/btrfs/volumes.h | 2 +- 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff

Re: [PATCH 11/15] btrfs: pass number of devices to btrfs_check_raid_min_devices

looks good. Reviewed-by: Anand Jain Tested-by: Anand Jain Thanks. On 02/16/2016 01:34 AM, David Sterba wrote: Before this patch, btrfs_check_raid_min_devices would do an off-by-one check of the constraints and not the miminmum check, as its

Re: [PATCH 10/15] btrfs: rename __check_raid_min_devices

thanks. Reviewed-by: Anand Jain On 02/16/2016 01:34 AM, David Sterba wrote: Underscores are for special functions, use the full prefix for better stacktrace recognition. Signed-off-by: David Sterba --- fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 4 ++-- 1 file

[PATCH] btrfs: fix build warning

We were getting build warning about: fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:7021:34: warning: ‘used_bg’ may be used uninitialized in this function It is not a valid warning as used_bg is never used uninitilized since locked is initially false so we can never be in the section where 'used_bg' is used. But