On 2017年12月18日 15:04, Ravi Hale wrote:
> My bad. 4.14.
Well, things get interesting now.
Although there are several new lowmem fixes pending for v4.14.1, the
backref mismatch bug should be addressed in v4.14.
Anyway, would you please try this branch to see if it solves the false
alerts?
https:
My bad. 4.14.
--
Tom "Ravi" Hale
Sent from my phone, please excuse brevity
On 18 December 2017 08:10:18 Qu Wenruo wrote:
On 2017年12月16日 23:41, Tom Hale wrote:
The following shows that errors are found with check --mode=lowmem, but
are not picked up without lowmem.
Btrfs-progs version p
Nice status update about btrfs volume manager. Thanks.
Below I have added the names of the patch in ML/wip addressing
the current limitations.
On 12/17/2017 07:58 PM, Duncan wrote:
Dark Penguin posted on Sat, 16 Dec 2017 22:50:33 +0300 as excerpted:
Could someone please point me towards
Hi,
On 12/18/2017 10:50 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
This is v4.14.
I've filed a bug which contains the build steps, versions. It's
crashing on all volumes I try it on so far.
It was fixed by Qu's patch
btrfs-progs: backref: Allow backref walk to handle direct parent ref
which is available on
This is v4.14.
I've filed a bug which contains the build steps, versions. It's
crashing on all volumes I try it on so far.
--
Chris Murphy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http
On 2017年12月17日 03:50, Dark Penguin wrote:
> Could someone please point me towards some read about how btrfs handles
> multiple devices? Namely, kicking faulty devices and re-adding them.
>
> I've been using btrfs on single devices for a while, but now I want to
> start using it in raid1 mode. I
On 2017年12月16日 23:41, Tom Hale wrote:
> The following shows that errors are found with check --mode=lowmem, but
> are not picked up without lowmem.
Btrfs-progs version please.
Depending on your btrfs-progs version, and the output, it's possible
that they're just false alerts and should be addre
--
Wir bieten Kredite an alle in Not mit 3% Zinssatz, keine Sicherheiten
beteiligt, überprüfen wir nicht auch Kredit-Scores, erhalten schnelle
und zuverlässige Darlehen
innerhalb von 3 Tagen garantieren. E-Mail jetzt für weitere
Informationen.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "
On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 8:48 AM, Peter Grandi
wrote:
> "Duncan"'s reply is slightly optimistic in parts, so some
> further information...
>> and it should detect a device coming back as a different
>> device too.
>
> That is disagreeable because of poor terminology: I guess that
> what was inten
"Duncan"'s reply is slightly optimistic in parts, so some
further information...
[ ... ]
> Basically, at this point btrfs doesn't have "dynamic" device
> handling. That is, if a device disappears, it doesn't know
> it.
That's just the consequence of what is a completely broken
conceptual model:
In two device configs of RAID1/RAID5 where one device can be missing
in the degraded mount, or in the configs such as four devices RAID6
where two devices can be missing, in these type of configs it can form
two separate set of devices where each of the set can be mounted without
the other set. And
When the missing device reappears and joins the RAID group, and if there
are no more missing device at the volume level, then reset the
BTRFS_SUPER_FLAG_VOL_MOVED_ON flag.
This patch is on top of the patch [1] in the ML.
[1] btrfs: handle dynamically reappearing missing device
Signed-off-by: Anan
Dark Penguin posted on Sat, 16 Dec 2017 22:50:33 +0300 as excerpted:
> Could someone please point me towards some read about how btrfs handles
> multiple devices? Namely, kicking faulty devices and re-adding them.
>
> I've been using btrfs on single devices for a while, but now I want to
> start
13 matches
Mail list logo
