Hi all,
The FAQ has a couple of sections on encryption (general and dm-crypt)
One thing that isn't explained there: if you create multiple encrypted
volumes (e.g. using dm-crypt) and use Btrfs to combine them into RAID1,
how does error recovery work when a read operation returns corrupted data?
I had a system that experienced a kernel panic and after rebooting, one
of the btrfs filesystems doesn't mount on the first attempt
The filesystem does mount if I run the mount command manually in the
emergency shell
The following messages appear in the kernel log:
BTRFS critical (device
On 05/01/12 11:09, Daniel Pocock wrote:
From there on, one could potentially create a matrix: (proportional
font art, apologies):
| subvol1 | subvol2 | subvol3 |
--+--+--+--+
subvol1 | 200M | 20M | 50M
There are two large disks, part of the disks partitioned for MD RAID1
and the rest of the disks partitioned for BtrFs RAID1
One of the disks (/dev/sdd) appears to have failed, there were plenty of
alerts from MD (including dmesg and emails) but nothing from the BtrFs
filesystem
Could this just
I've got a RAID1 on two 1TB partitions, /dev/sda3 and /dev/sdb3
I'm adding two new disks, they will have bigger partitions /dev/sdc3 and
/dev/sdd3
I'd like the BtrFs to migrate from the old partitions to the new ones as
safely and quickly as possible and if it is reasonable to do so, keeping
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 24/01/15 15:36, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 03:32:44PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
I've got a RAID1 on two 1TB partitions, /dev/sda3 and /dev/sdb3
I'm adding two new disks, they will have bigger partitions
/dev/sdc3
Hi,
Can anybody comment on how BtrFs (particularly RAID1 mirroring)
interacts with drives that offer error recovery control (or TLER in WDC
terms)?
I generally prefer to buy this type of drive for any serious data
storage purposes
I notice ZFS gets a mention in the Wikipedia article about the
On 23/11/13 04:59, Anand Jain wrote:
For example, would the command
btrfs filesystem show --all-devices
give a non-zero error status or some other clue if any of the devices
are at risk?
No there isn't any good way as of now. that's something to fix.
Does it require
On 23/11/13 09:37, Daniel Pocock wrote:
On 23/11/13 04:59, Anand Jain wrote:
For example, would the command
btrfs filesystem show --all-devices
give a non-zero error status or some other clue if any of the devices
are at risk?
No there isn't any good way as of now. that's
On 23/11/13 11:35, Duncan wrote:
Daniel Pocock posted on Sat, 23 Nov 2013 09:37:50 +0100 as excerpted:
What about when btrfs detects a bad block checksum and recovers data
from the equivalent block on another disk? The wiki says there will be
a syslog event. Does btrfs keep any stats
I just did a search and couldn't find any probe for btrfs RAID status
The check_raid plugin seems to recognise mdadm and various other types
of RAID but not btrfs
Has anybody seen a plugin for Nagios or could anybody comment on how it
should work if somebody wants to make one?
For example,
I've been able to run the Debian 7 installer (beta1) and get a working
Debian system on btrfs RAID1 root FS.
A few manual steps and patches required - it would be useful to get
feedback about this process. I might have a go at patching partman to
fully support this through the installer menu.
On 22/08/12 17:42, David Sterba wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 07:23:48AM -0400, Calvin Walton wrote:
A patch to add support for `btrfs fi defrag -c none file` or so would
make this easier, and shouldn't be to hard to do :)
This one is on my list of 'nice to have', it's needed to extend
to a
parity bit
On 22/08/12 13:05, Daniel Pocock wrote:
It is well documented that btrfs data recovery (after silent corruption)
is dependent on the use of btrfs's own RAID1.
However, I'm curious about whether any hardware RAID vendors are
contemplating ways to integrate more closely
It is well documented that btrfs data recovery (after silent corruption)
is dependent on the use of btrfs's own RAID1.
However, I'm curious about whether any hardware RAID vendors are
contemplating ways to integrate more closely with btrfs, for example,
such that when btrfs detects a bad
I created a 1TB RAID1. So far it is just for testing, no important data
on there.
After a reboot, I tried to mount it again
# mount /dev/mapper/vg00-btrfsvol0_0 /mnt/btrfs0
mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on
/dev/mapper/vg00-btrfsvol0_0,
missing codepage or helper
On 19/08/12 14:15, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 02:08:17PM +, Daniel Pocock wrote:
I created a 1TB RAID1. So far it is just for testing, no important data
on there.
After a reboot, I tried to mount it again
# mount /dev/mapper/vg00-btrfsvol0_0 /mnt/btrfs0
mount
On 19/08/12 16:51, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 02:33:14PM +, Daniel Pocock wrote:
On 19/08/12 14:15, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 02:08:17PM +, Daniel Pocock wrote:
I created a 1TB RAID1. So far it is just for testing, no important data
on there.
After
On 12/08/12 22:48, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 11:46 PM, Daniel Pocock dan...@pocock.com.au wrote:
I notice this question on the wiki/faq:
https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/UseCases#What_is_best_practice_when_partitioning_a_device_that_holds_one_or_more_btr
I notice this question on the wiki/faq:
https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/UseCases#What_is_best_practice_when_partitioning_a_device_that_holds_one_or_more_btr-filesystems
and as it hasn't been answered, can anyone make any comments on the subject
Various things come to mind:
a)
- if a non-RAID SAS card is used, does it matter which card is chosen?
Does btrfs work equally well with all of them?
If you're using btrfs RAID, you need a HBA, not a RAID card. If the RAID
card can work as a HBA (usually labelled as JBOD mode) then you're good to
go.
For example, HP
There is various information about
- enterprise-class drives (either SAS or just enterprise SATA)
- the SCSI/SAS protocols themselves vs SATA
having more advanced features (e.g. for dealing with error conditions)
than the average block device
For example, Adaptec recommends that such drives
From there on, one could potentially create a matrix: (proportional
font art, apologies):
| subvol1 | subvol2 | subvol3 |
--+--+--+--+
subvol1 | 200M | 20M | 50M |
--+--+--+--+
subvol2 |
I am looking at what metrics are needed to monitor btrfs in production.
I actually look after the ganglia-modules-linux package, which includes
some FS space metrics, but I figured that btrfs throws all that out the
window.
Can you suggest metrics that would be meaningful, do I look in
These are the btrfs-tools versions on Debian:
squeeze:
kernel: 2.6.32
tools: 0.19+20100601-3
squeeze-backports:
kernel: 2.6.39
tools: nothing (so user ends up with 0.19+20100601-3)
wheezy/testing/sid:
kernel: 3.1.6-1
tools: 0.19+2005-2
Using the 2.6.39 kernel from squeeze-backports, do I
Note that you really want to be running the latest kernel possible if
using btrfs; since 2.6.39 there have been several major performance
fixes, stability fixes, crash-corruption fixes, which users did hit on
a somewhat regular basis. Btrfs is not yet stable for the typical
user who just
It's actually not possible in general. Since it's possible to have
different bits of the FS (data vs metadata) with different replication
levels, one byte written to the FS could take up either 1 or 2 bytes
of raw disk storage, and there's no way of predicting what the overall
usage will
On 31/12/11 23:48, Milko Krachounov wrote:
So, is btrfsck going to be released by the end of 2011?
Doesn't seem so...
What is the next big date?
Debian 7 will probably be `frozen' within the next few months - if
btrfsck is available in time, maybe they will be able to offer btrfs as
a
28 matches
Mail list logo
