Re: btrfs RAID 10 truncates files over 2G to 4096 bytes.

Henk Slager posted on Mon, 04 Jul 2016 23:13:52 +0200 as excerpted: > [Tomasz Kusmierz wrote...] >> Problem is that stuff on this filesystem moves so slowly that it's hard >> to remember historical events ... it's like AWS glacier. What I can >> state with 100% certainty is that: >> - files that

Re: [PATCH v6 00/20] xfstests: minor fixes for the reflink/dedupe tests

Hi Darrick, On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 06:46:02PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > Hi all, > > This is the sixth revision of a patchset that adds to xfstests > support for testing reverse-mappings of physical blocks to file and > metadata (rmap); support for testing multiple file logical blocks to >

Re: [PATCH 19/20] xfs: run xfs_repair at the end of each test

On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 11:56:17AM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 06:48:01PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > Run xfs_repair twice at the end of each test -- once to rebuild > > the btree indices, and again with -n to check the rebuild work. > > > > Signed-off-by: Darrick J.

Re: [PATCH 19/20] xfs: run xfs_repair at the end of each test

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 06:48:01PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > Run xfs_repair twice at the end of each test -- once to rebuild > the btree indices, and again with -n to check the rebuild work. > > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong > --- > common/rc |3 +++ > 1 file

Re: Unable to mount degraded RAID5

04.07.2016 23:43, Chris Murphy пишет: > > Have you done a scrub on this file system and do you know if anything > was fixed or if it always found no problem? > scrub on degraded RAID5 cannot fix anything by definition, because even if scrub finds discrepancies, it does not have enough data to

[PATCH] btrfs-progs: tests: 006-image-on-missing-device: fix btrfs tool path

If btrfs isn't in the path, this test will fail with: [TEST/misc] 006-image-on-missing-device failed: btrfs fi show /dev/loop0 test failed for case 006-image-on-missing-device Makefile:226: recipe for target 'test-misc' failed make: *** [test-misc] Error 1 Fix the test script by adding

Re: btrfs defrag questions

On 2016-07-01 22:46, Henk Slager wrote: > (email ends up in gmail spamfolder) > On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Dmitry Katsubo wrote: >> Hello everyone, >> >> Question #1: >> >> While doing defrag I got the following message: >> >> # btrfs fi defrag -r /home >> ERROR: defrag

Re: Unable to mount degraded RAID5

I just tried btrfs rescue chunk-recover (btrfs-progs 4.6) on new Btrfs, 3x raid5 with 1 dev missing. I get: [root@f24s ~]# btrfs rescue chunk-recover /dev/VG/2 Scanning: DONE in dev0, DONE in dev1 open with broken chunk error Chunk tree recovery failed So I don't think rescue chunk-recover can

Re: Unable to mount degraded RAID5

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Tomáš Hrdina wrote: > http://sebsauvage.net/paste/?39c73a3440b2e903#WZnUJXNFPNz/fFuOK3QquVeOWQUopcCl0JabtuYMWew= Both backup 0 and 1 have bad information for backup_fs_root. backup_fs_root: 0 gen: 0 level: 0 Presumably it automatically

Re: btrfs defrag questions

Am Mon, 4 Jul 2016 23:16:50 +0200 schrieb Kai Krakow : > Am Sun, 3 Jul 2016 23:30:20 +0200 > schrieb Adam Borowski : > > > On Sun, Jul 03, 2016 at 04:15:02PM +0200, Henk Slager wrote: > > [...] > [...] > > > > > > I get: > > > ERROR: cannot

Re: btrfs RAID 10 truncates files over 2G to 4096 bytes.

I did consider that, but: - some files were NOT accessed by anything with 100% certainty (well if there is a rootkit on my system or something in that shape than maybe yes) - the only application that could access those files is totem (well Nautilius checks extension -> directs it to totem) so

Re: btrfs defrag questions

Am Sun, 3 Jul 2016 23:30:20 +0200 schrieb Adam Borowski : > On Sun, Jul 03, 2016 at 04:15:02PM +0200, Henk Slager wrote: > [...] > > > > > > That is probably true. Files that are mapped into memory (like > > > running executables) cannot be changed on disk. You could make

Re: btrfs RAID 10 truncates files over 2G to 4096 bytes.

On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 1:36 AM, Tomasz Kusmierz wrote: > Hi, > > My setup is that I use one file system for / and /home (on SSD) and a > larger raid 10 for /mnt/share (6 x 2TB). > > Today I've discovered that 14 of files that are supposed to be over > 2GB are in fact just

Re: Unable to mount degraded RAID5

One disk got reallocated sectors in SMART, so i did extended smart test and it passed. Then I ran scrub and it found nothing. Everything was ok. After this, it was started another extended smart test, weekly scheduled, and I thing that sometime during this, disk went offline. Maybe problem can

Re: RAID1: if one disk failed, what errors are expected?

2016-06-30 16:58 GMT+03:00 Timofey Titovets : > 2016-06-30 14:57 GMT+03:00 Anand Jain : >> >> >> Thanks for reporting. >> >> Right. Application shouldn't notice the EIO. First of all, >> we are not stopping IO to the disk which is pulled out. The >>

Re: Unable to mount degraded RAID5

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Tomáš Hrdina wrote: > Result from dmesg: > http://sebsauvage.net/paste/?4e8e95b5eafbf675#ybToBzZ/WAoRjjugeH6N2YXZKEBlswaNI/J41GBmFYU= [10849.041749] BTRFS info (device sda): allowing degraded mounts [10849.041754] BTRFS info (device sda):

Re: [Bug-tar] stat() on btrfs reports the st_blocks with delay (data loss in archivers)

On Jul 2, 2016, at 1:18 AM, Pavel Raiskup wrote: > > There are optimizations in archivers (tar, rsync, ...) that rely on up2date > st_blocks info. For example, in GNU tar there is optimization check [1] > whether the 'st_size' reports more data than the 'st_blocks' can hold

Re: Unable to mount degraded RAID5

Result from dmesg: http://sebsauvage.net/paste/?4e8e95b5eafbf675#ybToBzZ/WAoRjjugeH6N2YXZKEBlswaNI/J41GBmFYU= sudo btrfs dev scan Scanning for Btrfs filesystems sudo btrfs fi show warning, device 3 is missing checksum verify failed on 12678831570944 found 3DC57E3E wanted 771D2379 checksum verify

Re: [PATCH 16/20] reflink: test cross-mountpoint reflink and dedupe

On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 02:51:37PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 06:47:42PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > Test sharing blocks via reflink and dedupe between two different > > mountpoints of the same filesystem. This shouldn't work, since > > we don't allow cross-mountpoint

Re: Unable to mount degraded RAID5

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Tomáš Hrdina wrote: > Degraded gives same result: > > sudo mount -t btrfs -o ro,degraded /dev/sda /shares > mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/sda, >missing codepage or helper program, or other error > >

Re: Unable to mount degraded RAID5

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Tomáš Hrdina wrote: > sudo mount -t btrfs -o ro,recovery /dev/sdc /shares > mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/sdc, >missing codepage or helper program, or other error > >In some cases useful info is

Unable to mount degraded RAID5

Hello, one of my 3 disks failed in RAID5. After that, fs is unable to mount. Any help on what to try next would be appreciated. sudo btrfs version btrfs-progs v4.6.1 -- I installed 4.6.1 just now. I ran rescue on 4.4 uname -a Linux uncik-srv 4.4.0-24-generic #43-Ubuntu SMP Wed Jun 8 19:27:37

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: use the correct struct for BTRFS_IOC_LOGICAL_INO

On Sun, Jul 03, 2016 at 11:23:06PM +0200, Hans van Kranenburg wrote: > BTRFS_IOC_LOGICAL_INO takes a btrfs_ioctl_logical_ino_args as argument, > not a btrfs_ioctl_ino_path_args. The lines were probably copy/pasted > when the code was written. > > Since btrfs_ioctl_logical_ino_args and

Re: [PATCH] fs: btrfs: Replace -ENOENT by -ERANGE in btrfs_get_acl()

On Sun, Jul 03, 2016 at 05:40:10AM +0100, Salah Triki wrote: > size contains the value returned by posix_acl_from_xattr(), which > returns -ERANGE, -ENODATA, zero, or an integer greater than zero. So > replace -ENOENT by -ERANGE. > > Signed-off-by: Salah Triki

Re: [PATCH 1/2] btrfs: fix fsfreeze hang caused by delayed iputs deal

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 01:15:10PM +0800, Wang Xiaoguang wrote: > When running fstests generic/068, sometimes we got below WARNING: > xfs_io D 8800331dbb20 0 6697 6693 0x0080 > 8800331dbb20 88007acfc140 880034d895c0 8800331dc000 > 880032d243e8

Re: [PATCH 2/2] btrfs: fix free space calculation in dump_space_info()

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 01:12:16PM +0800, Wang Xiaoguang wrote: Can you please describe in more detail what is this patch fixing? > Signed-off-by: Wang Xiaoguang > --- > fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: fix read_node_slot to return errors

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 06:55:48PM -0700, Liu Bo wrote: > @@ -5238,6 +5256,10 @@ static void tree_move_down(struct btrfs_root *root, > path->slots[*level]); > path->slots[*level - 1] = 0; > (*level)--; > + > + if (IS_ERR(path->nodes[*level -

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: fix double free of fs root

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 01:44:38PM -0700, Liu Bo wrote: > I got this warning while mounting a btrfs image, > > [ 3020.509606] [ cut here ] > [ 3020.510107] WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 5581 at lib/idr.c:1051 > ida_remove+0xca/0x190 > [ 3020.510853] ida_remove called for id=42

Re: [PATCH 2/2] btrfs-progs: btrfsck: write corrected qgroup info to disk

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 01:37:49PM -0700, Mark Fasheh wrote: > Now that we can verify all qgroups, we can write the corrected qgroups out > to disk when '--repair' is specified. The qgroup status item is also updated > to clear any out-of-date state. The repair_ functions were modeled after the >

Re: GPF in __mark_inode_dirty due to locked_inode_to_wb_and_lock_list returning NULL

On 07/01/2016 08:38 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 12:00:50PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: >> Hello, >> >> On Thu 30-06-16 14:18:14, Nikolay Borisov wrote: >>> In light of the discussion in https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9187411/ >>> and >>> the discussion at >>>

Re: [PATCH V9 0/5] In-band de-duplication for btrfs-progs

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 05:24:26PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > Patchset can be fetched from github: > https://github.com/adam900710/btrfs-progs.git dedupe_20160630 > > Inband dedupe(in-memory backend only) ioctl support for btrfs-progs. > > User/reviewer/tester can still use previous btrfs-progs

Re: [PATCH 0/3] btrfs-progs: check improve 'checking extents' scalability

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 03:26:03PM -0400, je...@suse.com wrote: > From: Jeff Mahoney > > While running xfstests generic/291, which creates a single file populated > with reflinks to the same extent, I found that fsck had been running for > hours. perf top lead me to

Re: [PATCH] btrfs-progs: use the correct struct for BTRFS_IOC_LOGICAL_INO

On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 02:13:18PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: > On Sun, Jul 03, 2016 at 11:22:26PM +0200, Hans van Kranenburg wrote: > > BTRFS_IOC_LOGICAL_INO takes a btrfs_ioctl_logical_ino_args as argument, > > not a btrfs_ioctl_ino_path_args. The lines were probably copy/pasted > > when the

Re: [PATCH] btrfs-progs: use the correct struct for BTRFS_IOC_LOGICAL_INO

On Sun, Jul 03, 2016 at 11:22:26PM +0200, Hans van Kranenburg wrote: > BTRFS_IOC_LOGICAL_INO takes a btrfs_ioctl_logical_ino_args as argument, > not a btrfs_ioctl_ino_path_args. The lines were probably copy/pasted > when the code was written. > > Since btrfs_ioctl_logical_ino_args and

Re: [PATCH] btrfs-progs: mkfs: fix allocation information output of block group types

On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 01:26:25PM +0800, Wang Xiaoguang wrote: > When cleanup_temp_chunks() removes block groups, it forgot to update > mkfs_allocation accordingly, fix this. > > Signed-off-by: Wang Xiaoguang Applied, thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send

Re: [PATCH 1/2] btrfs-progs: convert: Fix a bug leads to discontinuous extents

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 03:50:10PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > Btrfs_record_file_extent() will split extents using max extent size(128M). > It works well for real file extents, but not that well for large > hole extent, as hole doesn't have extent size limit. > > In that case, it will only insert

Re: [PATCH] btrfs-progs: tests: 001-simple-unmounted: fix test failure due to bashism

On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 12:47:29AM +0100, Luis Henriques wrote: > The usage of 'source' is a bashism, and '.' should be used instead. This > is causing fuzz-tests/001-simple-unmounted to fail in systems where > /bin/sh isn't bash: > > [TEST/fuzz] 001-simple-unmounted > ./test.sh: 5:

Re: Cannot balance FS (No space left on device)

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Hans van Kranenburg > wrote: > >> >> Also, the behaviour of *always* creating a new empty block group before >> starting to work (which makes it

Re: [PATCH 16/20] reflink: test cross-mountpoint reflink and dedupe

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 06:47:42PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > Test sharing blocks via reflink and dedupe between two different > mountpoints of the same filesystem. This shouldn't work, since > we don't allow cross-mountpoint functions. > > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong