Hi Chris,
Any updates on the results of another month of full time work on btrfsck?
Thanks,
Erik.
> I've set myself up for disappointment with release dates in the past.
>
> We've found put some really important corruption fixes into the 3.2
> merge window, and the current for-linus branch of
>> That patch is released on this list on january 26th, called "Fix
>> balance panic". If you experience the same, you could try applying
>> this patch too. There is no (pre-built) kernel yet with this patch
>> already applied.
>
> Maybe it will help. But my actual problem is: I cannot mount the
>> But the next step is to update kernel and btrfs-progs from git.
>
> Maybe that doesn't help now. I'm working with kernel 2.6.37 and kernel
> 2.6.38-rc2, and I've got big problems.
I had to install at least 2.6.37 to have a kernel with an advanced
enough balance feature to actually reclaim th
Hi Leonidas,
Please check this:
btrfs fi df /home
If this shows much of your space used by metadata then please use:
btrfs fi balance /home
Note that this can take a long (>1 day) time to complete on a big FS.
- Erik
On 02/07/2011 10:21 PM, Leonidas Spyropoulos wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I ru
On 01/21/2011 03:32 PM, Diego Calleja wrote:
> On Viernes, 21 de Enero de 2011 10:54:00 Helmut Hullen escribió:
>
>> And I never have seen somethin like "Changelog" - that would be fine
>> too.
>
> Check the wiki, I keep that updated:
> https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page#News
> Yesterday I reported a similar problem in this mailing list, in the
> thread "version".
>
> Running kernel 2.6.37 didn't show this error, but running kernel 2.6.38-
> rc2 ended with errors.
>
> Viele Gruesse!
> Helmut
Ah, indeed, just like you I use 2.6.38-rc2. Or to be more precise:
2.6.3
>> [104178.827624] entry offset 8891924480, bytes 4096, bitmap yes
>> [104178.827626] block group has cluster?: no
>> [104178.827628] 0 blocks of free space at or bigger than bytes is
>> [104178.827631] block group 17213423616 has 5368709120 bytes, 5368709120
>> used 0 pinned 0 reserved
>> [104178
owest;
> + new_node->checked = 1;
> new_node->root = dest;
>
> if (!node->lowest) {
> ---
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Erik Logtenberg wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I hit the same bug again I think:
>>
>> [291835.724344]
ived a complete backup run,
with 5 simultaneous rsyncs running on it. Last night when the rsyncs
kicked in, it crashed within half an hour though.
I will now try downgrading to 2.6.36 as per Zheng Yan's suggestion.
Thanks,
Erik.
Op 17-1-2011 15:31, Erik Logtenberg schreef:
> Hi,
>
>
On 01/18/2011 03:13 PM, Yan, Zheng wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Erik Logtenberg wrote:
>> On 01/18/2011 01:54 AM, Yan, Zheng wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:14 PM, Erik Logtenberg
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> b
On 01/18/2011 01:54 AM, Yan, Zheng wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:14 PM, Erik Logtenberg wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> btrfs balance results in:
>>
>> http://pastebin.com/v5j0809M
>>
>> My system: fully up-to-date Fedora 14 with rawhide kernel to make btrf
type btrfs), uses xattr
Thanks,
Erik.
On 01/17/2011 03:37 PM, Erik Logtenberg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Additionally, I cannot mount the filesystem anymore. mount gives no
> error messages but hangs in state D.
> dmesg shows:
> [ 422.323116] btrfs: use compression
> Which is a good th
Hi,
Additionally, I cannot mount the filesystem anymore. mount gives no
error messages but hangs in state D.
dmesg shows:
[ 422.323116] btrfs: use compression
Which is a good thing, but it doesn't do anything otherwise.
Thanks,
Erik.
On 01/17/2011 03:31 PM, Erik Logtenberg wrote:
he FS
was not umountable. So I still had to reboot.
Thanks,
Erik.
On 01/17/2011 03:14 PM, Erik Logtenberg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> btrfs balance results in:
>
> http://pastebin.com/v5j0809M
>
> My system: fully up-to-date Fedora 14 with rawhide kernel to make btrfs
> balance do
Hi,
btrfs balance results in:
http://pastebin.com/v5j0809M
My system: fully up-to-date Fedora 14 with rawhide kernel to make btrfs
balance do useful stuff to my free space:
kernel-2.6.37-2.fc15.x86_64
btrfs-progs-0.19-12.fc14.x86_64
Filesystem had 0 bytes free, should be 45G, so on darklings a
Hi,
I'm not really answering your question, but may I suggest you change
your backup strategy to leverage one of btrfs main features: instead of
using the hardlink-feature of rsync, use snapshots. Btrfs snapshots are
way better than a hardlink-tree, for multiple reasons:
- It uses less diskspace,
>> Is there a decent way to have btrfs compress already existing files
>> (that were written before compression was enabled) without hurting any
>> of the internal structures such as snapshots?
>
> I'm afraid not yet. There is code for this in the btrfs balance
> routines, but we haven't yet adap
Chris, thank you very much for your explanation. Indeed this clears
things up a bit.
>>> Caveat: Defragmenting a file which has a COW copy (either a snapshot
>>> copy or one made with bcp or cp --reflinks) will produce two unrelated
>>> files. If you defragment a subvolume that has a snapshot, you
Hi,
I would like to know that the arguments of "btrfs filesystem defragment"
do. According to the built-in help page, the invocation is as follows:
> btrfs filesystem defragment [-vcf] [-s start] [-l len] [-t
> size] | [|...]
> Defragment a file or a direct
Hi David,
It's not that i disagree per se, but I'd appreciate if you would explain
this statement a little. Personally, I was hoping for cross-subvolumes
hardlinks, so I'd like to know why this hope was apparently a bad idea.
Kind regards,
Erik.
On 11/24/2010 11:07 PM, David Nicol wrote:
> I'v
20 matches
Mail list logo
