Chunk root problem

Hello, My system suddenly decided it did not want to mount my BTRFS setup. I recently rebooted the computer. When it came back, the file system was in read only mode. I gave it another boot, but now it does not want to mount at all. Anything I can do to recover? This is a Rockstor setup that I

Btrfs Compression

While reading the thread about adding zstd compression, it occurred to me that there is potentially another thing affecting performance - Compressed extent size. (correct my terminology if it's incorrect). I have two near identical RAID1 filesystems (used for backups) on near identical discs

Re: [GIT PULL] Btrfs for 4.13

On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 04:45:49PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Ouch, yeah, that was annoying. And yes, I ended up with several > whitespace differences but other than that it looks the same. Oh well. > > Jens, Christoph, let's not do that stupid thing with status-vs-error > ever again, ok? It

Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] btrfs: Add zstd support

On 7/5/17, 12:57 PM, "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" wrote: > It's the slower compression speed that has me arguing for the > possibility of configurable levels on zlib. 11MB/s is painfully slow > considering that most decent HDD's these days can get almost 5-10x that > speed

Re: [GIT PULL] Btrfs for 4.13

On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 8:19 AM, David Sterba wrote: > > There are conflicts with the recently merged block layer branch, the > resolutions are a bit tedious but still straightforward. Stephen sent a mail > about that [1]. You can find my merge at for-4.13-part1-merged, there

Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] btrfs: Add zstd support

On 2017-07-05 15:35, Nick Terrell wrote: On 7/5/17, 11:45 AM, "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" wrote: On 2017-07-05 14:18, Adam Borowski wrote: On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 07:43:27AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2017-06-30 19:01, Nick Terrell wrote: There is also the fact

Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] btrfs: Add zstd support

On 7/5/17, 11:45 AM, "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" wrote: >On 2017-07-05 14:18, Adam Borowski wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 07:43:27AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn >> wrote: >>> On 2017-06-30 19:01, Nick Terrell wrote: > There is also the fact of deciding what to use for the

Re: [PATCH 01/14] VFS: Don't use save/replace_mount_options if not using generic_show_options

On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 16:33:29 +0100 David Howells wrote: > Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > As this is patch 1/14, is there any dependency on this working? That > > is, it is safe to simply remove this caller from those locations? Or > > are there

Re: [PATCH 01/14] VFS: Don't use save/replace_mount_options if not using generic_show_options

On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 04:24:09PM +0100, David Howells wrote: > btrfs, debugfs, reiserfs and tracefs call save_mount_options() and reiserfs > calls replace_mount_options(), but they then implement their own > ->show_options() methods and don't touch s_options, rendering the saved > options

Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] btrfs: Add zstd support

On 2017-07-05 14:18, Adam Borowski wrote: On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 07:43:27AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2017-06-30 19:01, Nick Terrell wrote: There is also the fact of deciding what to use for the default when specified without a level. This is easy for lzo and zlib, where we can

Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] btrfs: Add zstd support

On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 07:43:27AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > On 2017-06-30 19:01, Nick Terrell wrote: > > > There is also the fact of deciding what to use for the default when > > > specified without a level. This is easy for lzo and zlib, where we can > > > just use the existing

Re: [proposal] making filesystem tools more machine friendly

Hi Jan, I really like the idea out json output for fs/block tools. nvme-cli has been doing it for a while, and that has been very useful. It comes with it's own little handrolled json output helpers: https://github.com/linux-nvme/nvme-cli/blob/master/json.c so it doesn't introduce any

Re: [PATCH 01/14] VFS: Don't use save/replace_mount_options if not using generic_show_options

Steven Rostedt wrote: > As this is patch 1/14, is there any dependency on this working? That > is, it is safe to simply remove this caller from those locations? Or > are there dependencies on having any of the 2-14 patches added to make > it not cause issues? Patch 14

Re: [PATCH 01/14] VFS: Don't use save/replace_mount_options if not using generic_show_options

On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 16:24:09 +0100 David Howells wrote: > btrfs, debugfs, reiserfs and tracefs call save_mount_options() and reiserfs > calls replace_mount_options(), but they then implement their own > ->show_options() methods and don't touch s_options, rendering the saved

[PATCH 01/14] VFS: Don't use save/replace_mount_options if not using generic_show_options

btrfs, debugfs, reiserfs and tracefs call save_mount_options() and reiserfs calls replace_mount_options(), but they then implement their own ->show_options() methods and don't touch s_options, rendering the saved options unnecessary. I'm trying to eliminate s_options to make it easier to

Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] btrfs: Add zstd support

On 2017-06-30 19:01, Nick Terrell wrote: If we're going to make that configurable, there are some things to consider: * the underlying compressed format -- does not change for different levels This is true for zlib and zstd. lzo in the kernel only supports one compression level. I had