Austin S. Hemmelgarn posted on Fri, 03 Jun 2016 10:21:12 -0400 as
excerpted:
> As far as BTRFS raid10 mode in general, there are a few things that are
> important to remember about it:
> 1. It stores exactly two copies of everything, any extra disks just add
> to the stripe length on each copy.
The series is aimed at getting rid of CURRENT_TIME and CURRENT_TIME_SEC macros.
The macros are not y2038 safe. There is no plan to transition them into being
y2038 safe.
ktime_get_* api's can be used in their place. And, these are y2038 safe.
All filesystem timestamps use current_fs_time() for the
When open in btrfs_open_devices failed, only the following message is
displayed. Therefore the user doesn't understand the reason why open
failed.
# btrfs check /dev/sdb8
Couldn't open file system
This patch adds the error message when open fails.
Signed-off-by: Tsutomu Itoh
---
volumes.c
Hi list,
On 05/31/2016 03:36 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Hans van Kranenburg wrote on 2016/05/06 23:28 +0200:
Hi,
I've got a mostly inactive btrfs filesystem inside a virtual machine
somewhere that shows interesting behaviour: while no interesting disk
activity is going on, btrfs keeps allocating n
Dear list
I've had a 4 drive btrfs raid1 setup in my backup NAS for a few months now.
It's running Fedora 23 Server with kernel 4.5.5 and btrfs-progs v4.4.1.
Recently I had the idea to replace the 6 TB HDDs with 8 TB ones ("WD Red"),
because their price is now acceptable.
(More back story: That
On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 01:13:03PM +0800, Lu Fengqi wrote:
> Only in the case of different root_id or different object_id, check_shared
> identified extent as the shared. However, If a extent was referred by
> different offset of same file, it should also be identified as shared.
> In addition, che
Hello,
System crashed. SysRq stilled worked.
btrfs check does not find error on any filesystem.
[82275.348754] general protection fault: [#1] PREEMPT SMP
[82275.354640] Modules linked in: cp210x usbserial rc_digittrade mt2060 af9013
uas intel_rapl kvm_intel dvb_usb_af9015 dvb_usb_v2 dvb_co
I was hoping for a more advanced method than just blacklisting drivers. :)
Anyways, it seems that first june there was a patch
[PATCH] btrfs: advertise which crc32c implementation is being used
at module load
that is getting merged lately, so In the near future I will be able to
see on
Hi,
a small set of fixes, a build fix and one minor enhancemen that will tell us
the crc32 implementation used. Please pull, thanks.
The following changes since commit 56244ef151c3cd11f505020ab0b3f45454363bcc:
Btrfs: fix handling of faults from btrfs_copy_from_user (2016-05-26 13:23:59
-0700)
On 2016/06/08 06:47:52 -0400, Noah Massey wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 8, 2016, cdlscpmv wrote:
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > It happened that I set the immutable flag (via `chattr +i`) on a subvolume.
> > Then I made a read-only snapshot of that subvolume. Now I can't remove
> > this snapshot.
> >
> >
On Wednesday, June 8, 2016, cdlscpmv wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> It happened that I set the immutable flag (via `chattr +i`) on a subvolume.
> Then I made a read-only snapshot of that subvolume. Now I can't remove
> this snapshot.
>
> #> btrfs subvolume delete my_snapshot
> Delete subvolume
Hi,
the next major version 4.6 is about to be released, ETA tomorrow. The biggest
change is the btrfs-convert rewrite. The delayed release was caused by more
testing as there were some late fixes to the code although the patchset
has been in the development branch for a long time.
Apart from that
On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 08:37:57 +
cdlscpmv wrote:
> It happened that I set the immutable flag (via `chattr +i`) on a subvolume.
> Then I made a read-only snapshot of that subvolume. Now I can't remove
> this snapshot.
>
> #> btrfs subvolume delete my_snapshot
> Delete subvolume
Hi!
It happened that I set the immutable flag (via `chattr +i`) on a subvolume.
Then I made a read-only snapshot of that subvolume. Now I can't remove
this snapshot.
#> btrfs subvolume delete my_snapshot
Delete subvolume (no-commit): 'my_snapshot'
ERROR: cannot del
14 matches
Mail list logo