hi,
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 05:56:18PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> Anyway it's a known problem, I don't think it's fixed still. There's a
> lot of enospc work in 4.8 so eventually it'll make sense to give it a
> shot with that kernel.
assuming that I'm willing to try that, will a successful reba
Currently we allow inconsistence about mixed flag
(BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_METADATA | BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DATA).
We'd get ENOSPC if block group has mixed flag and btrfs doesn't.
If that happens, we have one space_info with mixed flag and another
space_info only with BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_METADATA, and
global
When replaying extents, there is no need to update bytes_may_use
in btrfs_alloc_logged_file_extent(), otherwise it'll trigger a
WARN_ON about bytes_may_use.
Fixes: ("btrfs: update btrfs_space_info's bytes_may_use timely")
Signed-off-by: Wang Xiaoguang
---
fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 12 +---
At 08/24/2016 02:38 AM, Rakesh Sankeshi wrote:
sorry, was out of the town.
not much load on the system at all.
As we are hitting many issues in production, just using this system
for my test purpose. Built few different filesystems. 1 with LZO
compression, second one with ZLIB and third one w
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 07:47:27PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> Hi,
>
> btrfs-progs 4.7 have been released. Though it's a minor version release, there
> are changes that could be considered big but I don't see a reason to hold them
> until 4.8 is released.
...
> Tarballs: https://www.kernel.org/pu
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Lutz Vieweg wrote:
> On 08/16/2016 01:24 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Ronan Chagas wrote:
>>>
>>> It happened again. The computer was completely unusable. The only useful
>>> message I saw was this one:
>>>
>>> http://img.ctrlv.in
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Gert Menke wrote:
>> Such a switch doesn't exist, there's no way to define what files,
>> directories, or subvolumes, have what profiles.
>
> Well it kind of does - a running balance process seems to have just that
> effect, it's just not persistent (and has the s
Hi,
On 2016-08-25 21:50, Chris Murphy wrote:
It's incidental right now. It's not something controllable or intended
to have enduring mixed profile block groups.
I see. (Kindof)
Such a switch doesn't exist, there's no way to define what files,
directories, or subvolumes, have what profiles.
We
Hi,
On 2016-08-25 20:26, Justin Kilpatrick wrote:
I'm not sure why you want to avoid a balance,
I didn't check, but I imagined it would slow down my rsync
significantly.
Once you start this command all the new data should follow the new
rules.
Ah, now that's interesting.
When the balance i
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 1:19 AM, Robert Munteanu
wrote:
> I've managed to capture one of the error messages,
> but via screenshot only.
And here's the full output below, via netconsole
[ 2806.245627] BTRFS error (device sda1): Duplicate entries in free
space cache, dumping
[ 2806.277699] --
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Gert Menke wrote:
> However, I know that btrfs can have different raid modes on the same
> filesystem at the same time.
It's incidental right now. It's not something controllable or intended
to have enduring mixed profile block groups.
>So I was hoping I could
On 08/25/2016 07:26 PM, Dāvis Mosāns wrote:
> 2015-08-31 9:28 GMT+03:00 Dāvis Mosāns :
>> I'm getting kernel crash and complete system lockup when trying to access
>> journal on two disk btrfs filesystem with data/metadata as RAID1.
>
> I kept those drives untouched and now I tried again with Linu
2016-08-25 20:45 GMT+03:00 Hans van Kranenburg :
> On 08/25/2016 07:26 PM, Dāvis Mosāns wrote:
>> 2015-08-31 9:28 GMT+03:00 Dāvis Mosāns :
>>> I'm getting kernel crash and complete system lockup when trying to access
>>> journal on two disk btrfs filesystem with data/metadata as RAID1.
>>
>> I kept
I don't think its possible to change raid levels without using a balance.
I'm not sure why you want to avoid a balance, its a background process that
will auto resume if interrupted. You don't have to leave your machine on for
weeks at a time and it shouldn't slow down an active application using
Hi,
I recently created a new btrfs on two disks - one 6TB, one 2TB - for
temporary backup purposes.
It apparently defaulted to raid0 for data, and I didn't realize at the
time that this would become a problem.
Now the 2TB is almost full, and df tells me I only have about 200GB of
free space. W
Hi,
btrfs-progs 4.7 have been released. Though it's a minor version release, there
are changes that could be considered big but I don't see a reason to hold them
until 4.8 is released.
There's expected bunch of bugfixes and improvements. The checker low-memory
mode has been in devel for a few rel
2015-08-31 9:28 GMT+03:00 Dāvis Mosāns :
> I'm getting kernel crash and complete system lockup when trying to access
> journal on two disk btrfs filesystem with data/metadata as RAID1.
I kept those drives untouched and now I tried again with Linux 4.7.1
and accessing that file it didn't crashed b
On 08/05/2016 10:03 PM, Gabriel C wrote:
On 04.08.2016 18:53, Lutz Vieweg wrote:
I was today hit by what I think is probably the same bug:
A btrfs on a close-to-4TB sized block device, only half filled
to almost exactly 2 TB, suddenly says "no space left on device"
upon any attempt to write to
On 08/16/2016 01:24 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Ronan Chagas wrote:
It happened again. The computer was completely unusable. The only useful
message I saw was this one:
http://img.ctrlv.in/img/16/08/16/57b24b0bb2243.jpg
Looks similar to this:
https://lkml.org/lkm
Hi david and chris,
On 08/25/2016 06:54 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 03:42:54PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
Hi,
this pull request contains part 2 and adds more that arrived in the
meantime
(new fixes or updated versions of patches). Assorted fixes. Please pull,
thanks.
Loo
On 2016-08-25 05:38, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
Automatically resuming an interrupted balance has repeatedly caused all
sorts of problems because it creates a possible failure mode when a user
can least use it: after a crash/power loss/sudden reboot (which, like it
or not, is the de facto "fix ran
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 03:42:54PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
Hi,
this pull request contains part 2 and adds more that arrived in the meantime
(new fixes or updated versions of patches). Assorted fixes. Please pull,
thanks.
Looks like this commit is deadlocking btrfs/071, I'm double checking
Automatically resuming an interrupted balance has repeatedly caused all
sorts of problems because it creates a possible failure mode when a user
can least use it: after a crash/power loss/sudden reboot (which, like it
or not, is the de facto "fix random problems" approach for many people).
The id
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 03:42:58PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 11:34:27AM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 08:43:18PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Darrick J. Wong
> > > wrote:
> > > > [add Dave and Christoph to
So I've been living on the reckless-side (meta RAID6, data RAID5) and
I have a drive or two that isn't playing nicely any more.
dmesg of the system running for a few minutes: http://pastebin.com/9pHBRQVe
Everything of value is backed up, but I'd rather keep data than
download it all again. When I
25 matches
Mail list logo
