Re: [PATCH 0/9] Lowmem mode fsck fixes with fsck-tests framework update

On 01/27/2017 07:31 AM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 11:10 +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: Would you please try lowmem_tests branch of my repo? That branch contains a special debug output for the case you encountered, which should help to debug the case. pecial debug output

Re: btrfs recovery

Am 28.01.2017 um 23:27 schrieb Hans van Kranenburg: > On 01/28/2017 10:04 PM, Oliver Freyermuth wrote: >> Am 26.01.2017 um 12:01 schrieb Oliver Freyermuth: >>> Am 26.01.2017 um 11:00 schrieb Hugo Mills: We can probably talk you through fixing this by hand with a decent hex editor.

Re: Questions about drive sector sizes

2017-01-28 11:03 GMT+03:00 Rich Gannon : > Hello Btrfs users and devs, > > > I've gone searching through the mailing list dating back to 2014 or so and > never found a positive answer - mostly "guesses" about as to the answer, > albeit with good theories. I have two separate

Re: btrfs recovery

On 01/28/2017 10:04 PM, Oliver Freyermuth wrote: > Am 26.01.2017 um 12:01 schrieb Oliver Freyermuth: >> Am 26.01.2017 um 11:00 schrieb Hugo Mills: >>>We can probably talk you through fixing this by hand with a decent >>> hex editor. I've done it before... >>> >> That would be nice! Is it fine

Re: btrfs recovery

Am 26.01.2017 um 12:01 schrieb Oliver Freyermuth: >Am 26.01.2017 um 11:00 schrieb Hugo Mills: >>We can probably talk you through fixing this by hand with a decent >> hex editor. I've done it before... >> > That would be nice! Is it fine via the mailing list? > Potentially, the instructions

Re: Hard crash on 4.9.5

This same file system (which crashed again with the same errors) is also giving this output during a metadata or data balance: Jan 27 19:42:47 my_machine kernel: [ 335.018123] BTRFS info (device sda1): no csum found for inode 28472371 start 2191360 Jan 27 19:42:47 my_machine kernel: [

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

Hello, Of course I can't retrieve the data from before the balance, but here is the data from now: root@vmhost:~# btrfs fi show /tmp/mnt/curlybrace Label: 'curlybrace' uuid: f471bfca-51c4-4e44-ac72-c6cd9ccaf535 Total devices 1 FS bytes used 752.38MiB devid1 size 2.00GiB used 1.90GiB

Re: btrfs recovery

Hi Duncan, thanks for your extensive reply! Am 28.01.2017 um 06:00 schrieb Duncan: > All three options apparently default to 64K (as that's what I see here > and I don't believe I've changed them), but can be changed. See the > kernel options help and where it points for more. > Indeed, I

Re: btrfs recovery

Am 28.01.2017 um 13:37 schrieb Janos Toth F.: > I usually compile my kernels with CONFIG_X86_RESERVE_LOW=640 and > CONFIG_X86_CHECK_BIOS_CORRUPTION=N because 640 kilobyte seems like a > very cheap price to pay in order to avoid worrying about this (and > skip the associated checking + monitoring).

Re: btrfs recovery

I usually compile my kernels with CONFIG_X86_RESERVE_LOW=640 and CONFIG_X86_CHECK_BIOS_CORRUPTION=N because 640 kilobyte seems like a very cheap price to pay in order to avoid worrying about this (and skip the associated checking + monitoring). Out of curiosity (after reading this email) I set

[PATCH] btrfs-progs: fsck-tests: verify 'btrfs check --repair' fixes corrupted nlink field

Signed-off-by: Lakshmipathi.G --- tests/fsck-tests/026-check-inode-link/test.sh | 34 +++ 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+) create mode 100755 tests/fsck-tests/026-check-inode-link/test.sh diff --git

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

27.01.2017 23:03, Austin S. Hemmelgarn пишет: > 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

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

On Fri, 27 Jan 2017, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:40:42AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: The reason why I'm nervous is that nojournal mode is not a common configuration, and "wait until production systems start failing" is not a strategy that I or many SRE-types find

Questions about drive sector sizes

Hello Btrfs users and devs, I've gone searching through the mailing list dating back to 2014 or so and never found a positive answer - mostly "guesses" about as to the answer, albeit with good theories. I have two separate questions I'm looking to have answered with the latest known facts,

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

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:40:42AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > The reason why I'm nervous is that nojournal mode is not a common > configuration, and "wait until production systems start failing" is > not a strategy that I or many SRE-types find comforting. What does SRE stand for? -- To