Re: File system is oddly full after kernel upgrade, balance doesn't help

MegaBrutal posted on Fri, 27 Jan 2017 19:45:00 +0100 as excerpted: > Hi, > > Not sure if it caused by the upgrade, but I only encountered this > problem after I upgraded to Ubuntu Yakkety, which comes with a 4.8 > kernel. > Linux vmhost 4.8.0-34-generic #36-Ubuntu SMP Wed Dec 21 17:24:18 UTC >

Re: btrfs recovery

Austin S. Hemmelgarn posted on Fri, 27 Jan 2017 07:58:20 -0500 as excerpted: > On 2017-01-27 06:01, Oliver Freyermuth wrote: >>> I'm also running 'memtester 12G' right now, which at least tests 2/3 >>> of the memory. I'll leave that running for a day or so, but of course >>> it will not provide a

[GIT PULL] Btrfs

Hi Linus, My for-linus-4.10 branch: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git for-linus-4.10 Has some fixes that we've collected from the list. We still have one more pending to nail down a regression in lzo compression, but I wanted to get this batch out the door.

Re: raid1: cannot add disk to replace faulty because can only mount fs as read-only.

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 03:03:18PM -0500, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > On 2017-01-27 11:47, Hans Deragon wrote: > > However, as a user, I am seeking for an easy, no maintenance raid > > solution. I wish that if a drive fails, the btrfs filesystem still > > mounts rw and leaves the OS running,

Re: raid1: cannot add disk to replace faulty because can only mount fs as read-only.

On 2017-01-27 11:47, Hans Deragon wrote: On 2017-01-24 14:48, Adam Borowski wrote: On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 01:57:24PM -0500, Hans Deragon wrote: If I remove 'ro' from the option, I cannot get the filesystem mounted because of the following error: BTRFS: missing devices(1) exceeds the

File system is oddly full after kernel upgrade, balance doesn't help

Hi, Not sure if it caused by the upgrade, but I only encountered this problem after I upgraded to Ubuntu Yakkety, which comes with a 4.8 kernel. Linux vmhost 4.8.0-34-generic #36-Ubuntu SMP Wed Dec 21 17:24:18 UTC 2016 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux This is the 2nd file system which showed these

[PATCH] xfstests: btrfs/047: check btrfs-convert with extent and non-extent source

This is used to check the source which contains combination of Ext3 files in non-extent format and Ext4 extent-files. And validate the file md5sums before and after conversion. btrfs/012: BTRFS_CONVERT_PROG,E2FSCK_PROG definitions reused from common/config Signed-off-by: Lakshmipathi.G

Re: [PATCH 8/8] Revert "ext4: fix wrong gfp type under transaction"

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 10:37:35AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > If this ever turn out to be a problem and with the vmapped stacks we > have good chances to get a proper stack traces on a potential overflow > we can add the scope API around the problematic code path with the > explanation why it is

Re: raid1: cannot add disk to replace faulty because can only mount fs as read-only.

On 2017-01-24 14:48, Adam Borowski wrote: On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 01:57:24PM -0500, Hans Deragon wrote: If I remove 'ro' from the option, I cannot get the filesystem mounted because of the following error: BTRFS: missing devices(1) exceeds the limit(0), writeable mount is not allowed So I am

Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 4/4] vfs: wrap write f_ops with file_{start,end}_write()

[adding mfasheh & btrfs list to cc] On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 06:20:12PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 1:09 PM, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 8:43 PM,

Btrfs progs release 4.9.1

Hi, btrfs-progs version 4.9.1 have been released. Changes: * check: * use correct inode number for lost+found files * lowmem mode: fix false alert on dropped leaf * size reports: negative numbers might appear in size reports during device deletes (previously in EiB units) * mkfs: print

Re: btrfs recovery

On 2017-01-27 06:01, Oliver Freyermuth wrote: I'm also running 'memtester 12G' right now, which at least tests 2/3 of the memory. I'll leave that running for a day or so, but of course it will not provide a clear answer... A small update: while the online memtester is without any errors

Re: [PATCH 8/8] Revert "ext4: fix wrong gfp type under transaction"

On Fri 27-01-17 01:13:18, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 08:44:55AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > I'm convinced the current series is OK, only real life will tell us > > > > whether > > > > we missed something or not ;) > > > > > > I would like to extend the changelog of

Re: btrfs recovery

> I'm also running 'memtester 12G' right now, which at least tests 2/3 of the > memory. I'll leave that running for a day or so, but of course it will not > provide a clear answer... A small update: while the online memtester is without any errors still, I checked old syslogs from the machine