Re: [PATCH] fstests: common/rc: fix device still mounted error with SCRATCH_DEV_POOL

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:10:20PM -0800, Liu Bo wrote: > On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 02:22:28PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 06:04:59PM -0700, Liu Bo wrote: > > > One of btrfs tests, btrfs/011, uses SCRATCH_DEV_POOL and puts a > > > non-SCRATCH_DEV > > > device as the first

[PATCH v2] btrfs: Remove btrfs_inode::delayed_iput_count

delayed_iput_count wa supposed to be used to implement, well, delayed iput. The idea is that we keep accumulating the number of iputs we do until eventually the inode is deleted. Turns out we never really switched the delayed_iput_count from 0 to 1, hence all conditional code relying on the value

Re: [PATCH] fstests: common/rc: fix device still mounted error with SCRATCH_DEV_POOL

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 02:22:28PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 06:04:59PM -0700, Liu Bo wrote: > > One of btrfs tests, btrfs/011, uses SCRATCH_DEV_POOL and puts a > > non-SCRATCH_DEV > > device as the first one when doing mkfs, and this makes > > _require_scratch{_nocheck}

Re: Recommendations for balancing as part of regular maintenance?

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:23 AM, Tom Worster wrote: > On 13 Jan 2018, at 17:09, Chris Murphy wrote: > >> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:24 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn >> wrote: >> >> >>> To that end, I propose the following text for the FAQ: >>> >>> Q: Do I need

Re: invalid files names, btrfs check can't repair it

On 2018年01月16日 12:51, Qu Wenruo wrote: > Now the problems are all located: > > For file "2f3f379b2a3d7499471edb74869efe-1948311.d", it's the problem of > its DIR_ITEM has wrong type: > > -- > item 14 key (57648595 DIR_ITEM 3363354030) itemoff 3053 itemsize 70 >

Re: invalid files names, btrfs check can't repair it

Now the problems are all located: For file "2f3f379b2a3d7499471edb74869efe-1948311.d", it's the problem of its DIR_ITEM has wrong type: -- item 14 key (57648595 DIR_ITEM 3363354030) itemoff 3053 itemsize 70 location key (57923894 INODE_ITEM 0) type DIR_ITEM.33

Re: [PATCH] btrfs-progs: ins: fix arg order in print_inode_item()

Hi David, Would you please queue this patch to devel branch? This is a small enough, but quite important fix when handling dump tree output. Thanks, Qu On 2017年10月30日 16:20, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > On 2017年10月30日 16:10, Misono, Tomohiro wrote: >> In the print_inode_item(), the argument order

Re: big volumes only work reliable with ssd_spread

Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG posted on Mon, 15 Jan 2018 10:55:42 +0100 as excerpted: > since around two or three years i'm using btrfs for incremental VM > backups. > > some data: > - volume size 60TB > - around 2000 subvolumes > - each differential backup stacks on top of a subvolume > -

Re: how to make a cache directory nodatacow while also excluded from snapshots?

16.01.2018 00:56, Dave пишет: > I want to exclude my ~/.cache directory from snapshots. The obvious > way to do this is to mount a btrfs subvolume at that location. > > However, I also want the ~/.cache directory to be nodatacow. Since the > parent volume is COW, I believe it isn't possible to

Neujahrsspende von 4.800.000 €

-- Hallo, Sie haben eine Spende von 4.800.000,00 Euro, ich habe die America Lottery in Amerika im Wert von 40 Millionen Dollar gewonnen und ich gebe einen Teil davon an fünf glückliche Menschen und Wohltätigkeits-Häuser in Erinnerung an meine verstorbene Frau, die an Krebs gestorben ist.

how to make a cache directory nodatacow while also excluded from snapshots?

I want to exclude my ~/.cache directory from snapshots. The obvious way to do this is to mount a btrfs subvolume at that location. However, I also want the ~/.cache directory to be nodatacow. Since the parent volume is COW, I believe it isn't possible to mount the subvolume with different mount

Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] btrfs: cleanup btrfs_mount() using btrfs_mount_root()

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 06:14:40PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > > Misono, > > This change is causing subsequent (subvol) mount to fail when device > option is specified. The simplest eg for failure is .. > mkfs.btrfs -qf /dev/sdc /dev/sdb > mount -o device=/dev/sdb /dev/sdc /btrfs >

Re: Recommendations for balancing as part of regular maintenance?

On 13 Jan 2018, at 17:09, Chris Murphy wrote: On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:24 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: To that end, I propose the following text for the FAQ: Q: Do I need to run a balance regularly? A: While not strictly necessary for normal operations, running

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Remove btrfs_inode::delayed_iput_count

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 10:16:54AM -0700, Edmund Nadolski wrote: > > > On 01/15/2018 05:31 AM, Nikolay Borisov wrote: > > delayed_iput_count wa supposed to be used to implement, well, delayed > > iput. The idea is that we keep accumulating the number of iputs we do > > until eventually the inode

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Remove btrfs_inode::delayed_iput_count

On 01/15/2018 05:31 AM, Nikolay Borisov wrote: > delayed_iput_count wa supposed to be used to implement, well, delayed > iput. The idea is that we keep accumulating the number of iputs we do > until eventually the inode is deleted. Turns out we never really > switched the delayed_iput_count from

Re: [PATCH] fstests: common/rc: fix device still mounted error with SCRATCH_DEV_POOL

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 02:22:28PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 06:04:59PM -0700, Liu Bo wrote: > > One of btrfs tests, btrfs/011, uses SCRATCH_DEV_POOL and puts a > > non-SCRATCH_DEV > > device as the first one when doing mkfs, and this makes > > _require_scratch{_nocheck}

Re: btrfs subvolume mount with different options

Thanks, chattr +C is that's what I am currently using. Also you already answered my next question, why it is not possible to set +C attribute on the existing file :) Yours sincerely, Konstantin V. Gavrilenko - Original Message - From: "Roman Mamedov" To: "Konstantin

Re: Recommendations for balancing as part of regular maintenance?

On 2018-01-13 17:09, Chris Murphy wrote: On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:24 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: To that end, I propose the following text for the FAQ: Q: Do I need to run a balance regularly? A: While not strictly necessary for normal operations, running a

[PATCH] btrfs: Remove btrfs_inode::delayed_iput_count

delayed_iput_count wa supposed to be used to implement, well, delayed iput. The idea is that we keep accumulating the number of iputs we do until eventually the inode is deleted. Turns out we never really switched the delayed_iput_count from 0 to 1, hence all conditional code relying on the value

Re: invalid files names, btrfs check can't repair it

On 2018-01-15 12:23:05 [+0800], Qu Wenruo wrote: > Right, I'll fix it soon. > > And BTW what makes the the output different from the original one? > > Sebastaian, did you do extra write or other operation to the fs after > previous btrfs check? Well the filesystem is in use but there should be

Re: Fwd: Fwd: Question regarding to Btrfs patchwork /2831525

On 2018年01月15日 20:08, Ilan Schwarts wrote: > Thanks for detailed information ! > Its a legacy code for kernel module i maintain.. dont talk to me about > ancient when i need to maintain it to systems like solaris 8 or RHEL4 > 2.6.9 :( Well, that's unfortunate, I mean real unforunate... Despite

Re: Fwd: Fwd: Question regarding to Btrfs patchwork /2831525

Thanks for detailed information ! Its a legacy code for kernel module i maintain.. dont talk to me about ancient when i need to maintain it to systems like solaris 8 or RHEL4 2.6.9 :( On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 12:01 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > On 2018年01月15日 17:24, Ilan

Re: Fwd: Fwd: Question regarding to Btrfs patchwork /2831525

On 2018年01月15日 17:24, Ilan Schwarts wrote: > Qu, > Given inode, i get the fsid via: inode->i_sb->s_dev; > this return dev_t and not u8/u16 That's just a device number. Not really useful in btrfs, since btrfs is a multi-device filesystem. Thanks, Qu > > > On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 12:44 PM,

Re: Fwd: Fwd: Question regarding to Btrfs patchwork /2831525

On 2018年01月15日 17:05, Ilan Schwarts wrote: > Qu, Thank you very much for detailed response. > > I would like to understand something, on VFS, it is guaranteed that in > a given filesystem, only 1 inode number will be used, it is unique.> In > btrfs, you say the inode uniqueness is per volume,

big volumes only work reliable with ssd_spread

Hello, since around two or three years i'm using btrfs for incremental VM backups. some data: - volume size 60TB - around 2000 subvolumes - each differential backup stacks on top of a subvolume - compress-force=zstd - space_cache=v2 - no quote / qgroup this works fine since Kernel 4.14 except

Re: Fwd: Fwd: Question regarding to Btrfs patchwork /2831525

Qu, Given inode, i get the fsid via: inode->i_sb->s_dev; this return dev_t and not u8/u16 On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 12:44 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > On 2018年01月14日 18:32, Ilan Schwarts wrote: >> Thank you for clarification. >> Just 2 quick questions, >> 1. Sub volumes - 2

Re: [PATCH 0/7] Misc btrfs-progs cleanups/fixes

On 5.12.2017 10:39, Nikolay Borisov wrote: > Here is a series doing some minor code cleanups, hopefully making the code > more idiomatic and easier to follow. They should be pretty low-risk and > introduce no functional changes (patches 1-5). > > The the last 2 patches deal with a

Re: Fwd: Fwd: Question regarding to Btrfs patchwork /2831525

Qu, Thank you very much for detailed response. I would like to understand something, on VFS, it is guaranteed that in a given filesystem, only 1 inode number will be used, it is unique. In btrfs, you say the inode uniqueness is per volume, each volume has its own inode space, How is it possible ?

Re: invalid files names, btrfs check can't repair it

On 2018-01-15 09:26:27 [+0800], Qu Wenruo wrote: > Please run the following command too: > > # btrfs inspect dump-tree | grep -C20 \(57923894 ~# btrfs inspect dump-tree /dev/sdb4 | grep -C20 \(57923894 ctime 1515602448.66422211 (2018-01-10 17:40:48) mtime

Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] btrfs: cleanup btrfs_mount() using btrfs_mount_root()

On 2018/01/12 19:14, Anand Jain wrote: > > Misono, > > This change is causing subsequent (subvol) mount to fail when device > option is specified. The simplest eg for failure is .. > mkfs.btrfs -qf /dev/sdc /dev/sdb > mount -o device=/dev/sdb /dev/sdc /btrfs > mount -o