00 PM, Leonidas Spyropoulos
wrote:
> On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 11:33 PM, Harald Glatt wrote:
>> Data that already exists will only be compressed on re-write. You can
>> do it with btrfs fi defrag and a script that traverses the fs to call
>> defrag on every file. Another good wa
Data that already exists will only be compressed on re-write. You can
do it with btrfs fi defrag and a script that traverses the fs to call
defrag on every file. Another good way is the find command that has
been outlined here:
https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Problem_FAQ#Defragmenting_a_di
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On May 15, 2013, at 10:44 AM, Harald Glatt wrote:
>
>>
>> You make a ro snapshot rw by creating a snapshot of it that is rw. So
>> yes to both questions, by doing the same thing in both cases.
>
> In other
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On May 15, 2013, at 1:40 AM, Gabriel de Perthuis wrote:
>
>>
>> You can move subvolumes at any time, as if they were regular directories.
>
> In the example case, the subvolumes are read-only. So is it possible to make
> a read-only subvol
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Philipp Dreimann wrote:
> Hello,
>
> my btrfs filesystem was not mountable anymore after a loss of power:
>
> kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c:1567!
> invalid opcode: [#1] SMP
> Modules linked in: btrfs libcrc32c xor zlib_deflate raid6_pq i915(+)
> i2
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Vincent wrote:
> Le 13/05/2013 16:29, Harald Glatt a écrit :
>
>> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Vincent wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I am on Ubuntu Server 13.04 with Linux 3.8.
>>>
>>> I'
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Vincent wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am on Ubuntu Server 13.04 with Linux 3.8.
>
> I've created a "single-raid" using /dev/sd{a,b,c,d}{1,3}. One of my hard
> drives has failed, I mean it's materially dead.
>
> :~$ sudo btrfs filesystem show
> Label: none uuid: 40886f51-8
I can only speak from experience, a snapshot can take up to a minute
to create later on, so minutely snapshots are out of the question
then... I have snapshots every hour and I have no problems with that
at all :)
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Martin wrote:
> Dear Devs,
>
> This is more a use
I have this problem too, and I cannot reproduce it properly... When is
that patch in btrfs-next going to be in the mainline kernel?
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Jan Schmidt wrote:
> On Sun, May 05, 2013 at 18:10 (+0200), Kai Krakow wrote:
>> Hello list,
>>
>> Kai Krakow schrieb:
>>
>>> I've
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Martin wrote:
> I've made a few attempts to boot into a root filesystem created using:
>
> mkfs.btrfs -d raid1 -m raid1 -L btrfs_root_3 /dev/sda3 /dev/sdb3
>
> Both grub and grub2 pick up a kernel image fine from an ext4 /boot on
> /dev/sda1 for exaample, but then
gt; real 0m0.001s
> user 0m0.000s
> sys 0m0.000s
>
> Because performance was good again I was able to spam the volume with
> data and the metadata size also grew. No problems in that department
> either. ;-)
>
> 2013/4/28 Harald Glatt :
>> On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 9:18 P
> 2013/4/28 Harald Glatt :
>> On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 9:10 PM, John . wrote:
>>> Hi Harald,
>>>
>>> I did perform a defrag of the volume a few hours ago. This did not
>>> make a difference. :(
>>>
>>> Yours,
>>>
>>>
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 9:04 PM, John . wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> My Btrfs fs has a performance problem which I hope you can help me
> solve. I have a dataset of around 3.15 TiB, that has lived on a ZFS
> volume for almost two years (ZRAID1, 4 2TiB disks). In order to move
> to Btrfs I bought myself a
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> I'm having lots of problems with wrong checksums on the most recent
> kernels. Note that this is not a regression as far as I know, just
> more pronounced now than before (the increase in severity might be due
> to changes in my setup).
>
> I
think remount fixes the keys reverted problem?
>
> On 22/04/2013 15:18, "Harald Glatt" wrote:
>
>>Only data errors (from CRC checks), maybe also some structure errors -
>>I'm not sure. A remount should fix all errors. If it doesn't I think
>>it's con
to 3.8.8.
>
> On 22/04/2013 15:28, "Harald Glatt" wrote:
>
>>I think it won't... That would just be the goal eventually. If scrub
>>sees no errors all the data should be in tact and your best bet to get
>>things working perfectly again is to create a ne
repair.
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Mark Ridley wrote:
> What does btrfs scrub do?
>
> Is that meant to detect and fix problems?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mark
>
> On 22/04/2013 15:13, "Harald Glatt" wrote:
>
>>Yeah, --repair is not recommended as of now. M
lems if they can't be fixed so I ran with --repair and it
> broke the volume.
>
> On 22/04/2013 15:02, "Harald Glatt" wrote:
>
>>On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Mark Ridley
>>wrote:
>>> Thanks, David.
>>>
>>> What causes this corrupt
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Mark Ridley wrote:
> Thanks, David.
>
> What causes this corruption and how can I fix it?
>
> I'm very worried about running btrfs.fsck as last time it made a slight
> corruption like this worse and the whole volume had to be trashed.
>
> After fsck the "available
That's not gonna be a problem, I'm always running on the most recent
final kernel - in the case of my panic it was 3.8.6. Thanks!
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Roman Mamedov wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 13:19:13 +0200
> Harald Glatt wrote:
>
>> You're right, I
; not working anymore problem:
http://pastebin.com/3QZqrqAX
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Roman Mamedov wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 09:48:55 +0200
> Harald Glatt wrote:
>
>> At some point 'btrfs send' stopped working but gave no better error
>> message than invalid argumen
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Harald Glatt wrote:
> The dmesg from the kernel panic can be seen here:
> http://pastebin.com/3QZqrqAX
>
> I've tried to create a btrfs-image but I'm getting a crash of the
> utility after only 50 MB...
>
> Check tree block fa
age: btrfs-image.c:518: create_metadump: Assertion `!(ret < 0)' failed.
[1]32513 abort (core dumped)
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Harald Glatt wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've managed to ruin my btrfs filesystem, but I don't know how. I
> basically have it split up into tw
Hi all,
I've managed to ruin my btrfs filesystem, but I don't know how. I
basically have it split up into two subvolumes, one for the root and
one for home both of which are creating hourly snapshots.
I've 'btrfs send' some of those to an external machine every now and
then. (At least once a day)
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 3:56 AM, Shripad Ratnaparkhi
wrote:
> [Replying to my own email]
>
> Found a patch which seems to be discusses the fix in a patch provided here:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/1946561/
>
> Still now sure whether that is already there in v0.20-rc1 or
> applicable to fix
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 4:23 AM, Harald Glatt wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 1:29 AM, Harald Glatt wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Harald Glatt wrote:
>>> Hi list,
>>>
>>> what are currently the backup options for btrfs?
>>>
>&
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 1:29 AM, Harald Glatt wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Harald Glatt wrote:
>> Hi list,
>>
>> what are currently the backup options for btrfs?
>>
>> Is it possible to somehow duplicate the entire filesystem including
>> all sna
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Harald Glatt wrote:
> Hi list,
>
> what are currently the backup options for btrfs?
>
> Is it possible to somehow duplicate the entire filesystem including
> all snapshots without using the real space for each snapshot onto a
> remote ser
Hi list,
what are currently the backup options for btrfs?
Is it possible to somehow duplicate the entire filesystem including
all snapshots without using the real space for each snapshot onto a
remote server? (Maybe given the remote server uses btrfs too?) Are
these features planned?
Right now t
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Swâmi Petaramesh wrote:
> Le 02/04/2013 19:04, Roman Mamedov a écrit :
>> but at this point I trust my data to BTRFS more, than I would trust ZFS.
>
> My experience with ZFS on Linux is still somewhat limited, the only
> thing that I can say is that I've used it for
Oh man :D It was so elaborate that I really believed it :P
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 08:50:34AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I was bored this weekend so I hacked up online dedup for Btrfs. It's working
>> quite well so I think i
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I was bored this weekend so I hacked up online dedup for Btrfs. It's working
> quite well so I think it can be more widely tested. There are two ways to use
> it
>
> 1) Compatible mode - this is a bit slower but will handle being us
Ah, now it makes sense!! Thanks!
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Hugo Mills wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 03:18:03PM +0100, Harald Glatt wrote:
>> Sorry I forgot to post that,
>>
>> -> btrfs fi show
>> Label: none uuid: 2feccf06-5af8-4d8a-ad8d-a090cf4ef6
ing than a real world
example. I've simply combined two differently sized partitions on the
same disk together.
So how much space is actually used now?
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 07:58:40AM -0600, Harald Glatt wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
&
Hi,
I'm somewhat confused with who is right on what when it comes to
showing disk usage and space free.
I have a file system that I'm using for testing with a full linux
installed as well as X and a desktop. I've created a good amount of
snapshots and I've also done a lot of changes to the system
On that note, is btrfs doing automatic background scrubs of its own or
do I have to use crontab to schedule scrubs?
Thanks!
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 03:50:15AM -0600, Swāmi Petaramesh wrote:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> I've started "btrfs scrub start /
That's because the test shouldn't be in your root in the first place.
The common way of thinking now is to create a btrfs volume with a
structure for holding subvolumes inside of which your system root is a
member. You then mount the system root via -o subvol= and will only
see it and nothing else.
If you care about the data, create a backup if you haven't already
done so. Then you can try btrfsck, maybe you are in luck!
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 2:38 AM, Russell Coker wrote:
> I have a workstation running the Debian packaged 3.7.1 kernel from 24th
> December last year. After some period of
If you are going to use btrfs-zero-log please create a btrfs-image
first that you can then upload to a bug report so that this can be
fixed.
# btrfs-image -c 9 -t 8 /dev/yourbtrfs /tmp/fs_image
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Jan Steffens wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Har
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Matthew Booth wrote:
> My laptop crashed hard earlier today. It reset immediately to a black
> screen followed by the BIOS. I have no idea why.
>
> However, it now fails to boot. I took a picture of the kernel panic
> that results from trying to mount the root fil
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 11:24 PM, Hugo Mills wrote:
>> On 03/09/2013 09:31 PM, Hugo Mills wrote:
>> >Some time ago, and occasionally since, we've discussed altering the
>> > "RAID-n" terminology to change it to an "nCmSpP" format, where n is the
>> > number of copies, m is the number of (data)
annot recover from (heavily paraphrased) so I knew that my 150 MB
test was very close to the limit.
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 11:59 PM, Goffredo Baroncelli
wrote:
> On 03/10/2013 10:45 PM, Harald Glatt wrote:
>
>> I've noticed through my own tests that on a single device I can
>&
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 10:36 PM, Hugo Mills wrote:
>
>Oh, sorry. It's "reduced redundancy", aka DUP -- i.e. you get that
> number of copies, but not guarantee that the copies all live on
> different devices. I'm not devoted to showing it this way. Other
> suggestions for making this distincti
> Very good points,
>
> I was also gonna write something by the lines of 'all that matters is
> achieving the minimum amount of redundancy, as requested by the user,
> at the maximum possible performance'.
>
> After reading your post now, Roger, I'm much more clear on what I
> actually wanted to sa
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Roger Binns wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 09/03/13 17:44, Hugo Mills wrote:
>> You've got at least three independent parameters to the system in order
>> to make that choice, though, and it's a fairly fuzzy decision problem.
>> You
On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Hugo Mills wrote:
>Some time ago, and occasionally since, we've discussed altering the
> "RAID-n" terminology to change it to an "nCmSpP" format, where n is the
> number of copies, m is the number of (data) devices in a stripe per copy,
> and p is the number of
Hi,
I have set up a btrfs within a 200 GB file that I mount via -o loop.
It worked fine so far but today it crashed when there was alot of
concurrent writing/reading going on.
I'm testing it with a torrent client, so the data is really irrelevant
- but it's a good amount of stress.
When it
47 matches
Mail list logo
