On 04/04/2018 02:34 AM, David Sterba wrote:
Replace a WARN_ON with a proper check and message in case something goes
really wrong and resumed balance cannot set up its exclusive status.
The check is a user friendly assertion, I don't expect to ever happen
under normal circumstances.
Also do
On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 07:10:52PM -0500, Vijay Chidambaram wrote:
>
> I don't think this is what the paper's ext3-fast does. All the paper
> says is if you have a file system where the fsync of a file persisted
> only data related to that file, it would increase performance.
> ext3-fast is the na
On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 3:10 AM, Vijay Chidambaram wrote:
[...]
> Consider the following workload:
>
> creat foo
> link (foo, A/bar)
> fsync(foo)
> crash
>
> In this case, after the file system recovers, do we expect foo's link
> count to be 2 or 1? I would say 2, but POSIX is silent on this,
There are already 2 reports about strangely corrupted super blocks,
where csum type and incompat flags get some obvious garbage, but csum
still matches and all other vitals are correct.
This normally means some kernel memory corruption happens, although the
cause is unknown, at least detect it and
On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 10:33 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 7:45 PM, Alexander Zapatka
> wrote:
>> thanks, Chris. i have given a timeout of 300 to all the drives. they
>> are all USB, all connected to an apollo lake based htpc. then i
>> started the command again... the dme
On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 7:45 PM, Alexander Zapatka
wrote:
> thanks, Chris. i have given a timeout of 300 to all the drives. they
> are all USB, all connected to an apollo lake based htpc. then i
> started the command again... the dmesg output is here from a few
> minutes after i started the btr
There are already 2 reports about strangely corrupted super blocks,
where csum type and incompat flags get some obvious garbage, but csum
still matches and all other vitals are correct.
This normally means some kernel memory corruption happens, although the
cause is unknown, at least detect it and
thanks, Chris. i have given a timeout of 300 to all the drives. they
are all USB, all connected to an apollo lake based htpc. then i
started the command again... the dmesg output is here from a few
minutes after i started the btrfs device remove command.
https://paste.ee/p/H1R0i. no hopes, high
I just ran into this:
https://github.com/neilbrown/mdadm/pull/32/commits/af1ddca7d5311dfc9ed60a5eb6497db1296f1bec
This solution is inadequate, can it be made more generic? This isn't
an md specific problem, it affects Btrfs and LVM as well. And in fact
raid0, and even none raid setups.
There is n
On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 6:30 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> # echo value > /sys/block/device-name/device/timeout
>
Also note that this is not a persistent setting. It needs to be done
per boot. But before you change it, use cat to find out what the value
is. Default is 30.
I'm seeing this:
https://g
Please keep the list in the cc:
On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 5:55 PM, Alexander Zapatka
wrote:
> output:
>
> $ sudo smartctl -l scterc /dev/sdc
> smartctl 6.6 2016-05-31 r4324 [x86_64-linux-4.13.0-38-generic] (local build)
> Copyright (C) 2002-16, Bruce Allen, Christian Franke, www.smartmontools.org
Hi Ted,
On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 9:13 AM, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 08:35:45PM -0500, Vijaychidambaram Velayudhan Pillai
> wrote:
>> I was one of the authors on that paper, and I didn't know until today you
>> didn't like that work :) The paper did *not* suggest we support
On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 6:14 AM, Alexander Zapatka
wrote:
> i recently set up a drive pool in single mode on my little media
> server. about a week later SMART started telling me that the drive
> was having issue and there is one bad sector. since the array is far
> from full i decided to remove
On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 08:35:45PM -0500, Vijaychidambaram Velayudhan Pillai
wrote:
> I was one of the authors on that paper, and I didn't know until today you
> didn't like that work :) The paper did *not* suggest we support invented
> guarantees without considering the performance impact.
I had
Qu Wenruo posted on Sat, 14 Apr 2018 22:41:50 +0800 as excerpted:
>> sectorsize 4096
>> nodesize 4096
>
> Nodesize is not the default 16K, any reason for this?
> (Maybe performance?)
>
>>> 3) Extra hardware info about your sda
>>> Things like SMART and hardware model would also
Hi,
we have queued a few more fixes (error handling, log replay, softlockup)
and the rest is SPDX update that touches almost all files so the
diffstat is long. The top patch is a fixup for excessive warning and
was not in linux-next but I've tested it locally.
Please pull, thanks.
--
i recently set up a drive pool in single mode on my little media
server. about a week later SMART started telling me that the drive
was having issue and there is one bad sector. since the array is far
from full i decided to remove the drive from the pool. but running
btrfs device remove /dev/sd
On 2018年04月15日 16:39, Timo Nentwig wrote:
> On 04/14/2018 03:45 PM, Timo Nentwig wrote:
>> On 04/14/2018 11:42 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>> And the work load when the RO happens is also helpful.
>>> (Well, the dmesg of RO happens would be the best though)
>> I had a glance at dmesg but don't remember
On 04/14/2018 03:45 PM, Timo Nentwig wrote:
On 04/14/2018 11:42 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
And the work load when the RO happens is also helpful.
(Well, the dmesg of RO happens would be the best though)
I had a glance at dmesg but don't remember anything specific (think
the usual " [cut here] ---
19 matches
Mail list logo
