Hallo,
I've added a fourth device (/dev/sdf1; connected via USB) to my 3-disks-
btrfs bundle (data raid0, metadata raid1), and then I run balance.
That needed (for about 6 TByte data) about 17 hours.
It finished with
ERROR: error during balancing '/srv/MM' - No space left on device
There may
Hallo, Alexander,
Du meintest am 01.05.13:
If I want to manage a complete disk with btrfs, what's the Best
Practice? Would it be best to create the btrfs filesystem on
/dev/sdb, or would it be better to create just one partition from
start to end and then do mkfs.btrfs /dev/sdb1?
Would the
Hallo, Alexander,
Du meintest am 30.04.13:
On my HP Compaq dc5800 with Ubuntu 13.04 and their
3.8.0-19-lowlatency kernel, I've got quite some kernel traces in the
syslog.
It's a very good idea to use the newest kernel for btrfs. 3.8.0 is
really old.
Just try kernel 3.8.10.
Viele Gruesse!
Hallo, Jon,
Du meintest am 21.03.13:
2. the current git btrfs-show and btrfs fi show both output
*different* devices for device with UUID
b5dc52bd-21bf-4173-8049-d54d88c82240, and they're both wrong.
does blkid output find that uuid anywhere?
Since you're working in git, can you maybe do
Hallo, Jon,
Du meintest am 21.03.13:
First btrfs-show (git):
**
** WARNING: this program is considered deprecated
** Please consider to switch to the btrfs utility
btrfs-show makes nasty errors, especially together with blkid.
Delete btrfs-show. That's the safe way.
Viele Gruesse!
Hallo, Martin,
Du meintest am 05.01.13:
No - I don't rely on such an assumption.
In the special case I'm just working with I want to use the whole
disk only for btrfs.
In other cases I work with partitions, and there is just the same
problem: at least blkid and findfs don't work when more
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 03.01.13:
My usual way:
mkfs.btrfs -d raid0 -m raid1 /dev/sdb /dev/sdc /dev/sdd ...
One call for some devices.
Wenn I add the option -L mylabel then each device gets the same
label, and therefore some other programs can't find the (one) device
with the
Hallo, linux-btrfs,
on my testing USB stick
btrfs fi show
shows
Label: 'mylabel' uuid: e9716633-49f1-44a0-a3b4-90ba9736a540
Total devices 3 FS bytes used 28.00KB
devid3 size 1.00GB used 288.00MB path /dev/sdb3
devid2 size 1.00GB used 512.00MB path
Hallo, Jan,
Du meintest am 05.01.13:
Has mkfs.btrfs to delete the /dev/sdb data when it overwrites
the configuration with data for partitions? Or has the user to run
something like dd if=/dev/zero ...?
Take a look at:
https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Problem_FAQ#How_to_clean_up_o
Hallo, Chris,
Du meintest am 03.01.13:
MBR has no mechanism for labeling the disk itself or the
partitions. So /dev/sda cannot have a label or a name.
Sure?
Yes. MBR itself has no place holder to encode a disk name or
partition name. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_boot_record
I've
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 03.01.13:
[...]
And then for blkid:
# blkid
/dev/sdb: LABEL=test2 UUID=3d5390d0-a41b-4f70-a4e5-b47295d3c717
UUID_SUB=a5bbaa83-6d6f-45dc-9804-9442350c3bc9 TYPE=btrfs
/dev/sdc: LABEL=test2 UUID=3d5390d0-a41b-4f70-a4e5-b47295d3c717
Hallo, linux-btrfs,
please delete the option -L (for labelling) in mkfs.btrfs, in some
configurations it doesn't work as expected.
My usual way:
mkfs.btrfs -d raid0 -m raid1 /dev/sdb /dev/sdc /dev/sdd ...
One call for some devices.
Wenn I add the option -L mylabel then each device
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 03.01.13:
please delete the option -L (for labelling) in mkfs.btrfs, in
some configurations it doesn't work as expected.
My usual way:
mkfs.btrfs -d raid0 -m raid1 /dev/sdb /dev/sdc /dev/sdd ...
One call for some devices.
Wenn I add the option -L
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 03.01.13:
But for what purpose offers mkfs.btrfs this option?
So that you don't have to run the label command immediately after
making the filesystem. Most mkfs implementations for different
filesystems have something similar, usually with the -L option.
But
Hallo, cwillu,
Du meintest am 03.01.13:
But other filesystems don't put the label onto more than 1 device.
There's the problem for/with btrfs.
Other filesystems don't exist on more than one device, so of course
they don't put a label on more than one device.
Yes, I know.
And let me repeat
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 03.01.13:
But for what purpose offers mkfs.btrfs this option?
So that you don't have to run the label command immediately
after making the filesystem.
But other filesystems don't put the label onto more than 1 device.
There's the problem for/with btrfs.
Hallo, Chris,
Du meintest am 03.01.13:
Device can mean more than one thing, physical device, partition, md
device, logical volume, etc.
Label is more narrowly defined to that of filesystems.
MBR has no mechanism for labeling the disk itself or the partitions.
So /dev/sda cannot have a
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 03.01.13:
[...]
Trying to use filesystem labels to give unique and stable device
IDs is the wrong tool for the job.
I beg to differ. On my machines it's the simpliest way, and it's a
sure way.
No, because *it* *doesn't* *work*. This is not a bug. This is
Hallo, Chris,
Du meintest am 03.01.13:
So 'btrfs fi label' relabeling with an unmounted system changes the
file system label metadata on all member devices, according to btrfs
fi label. Now when I use file:
On my system (a bundle of /dev/sdb, /dev/sdc, /dev/sdd)
btrfs fi label
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 03.01.13:
On my system (a bundle of /dev/sdb, /dev/sdc, /dev/sdd)
btrfs fi label /dev/sdb mylabel
only sets the label on the (unmounted) device /dev/sdb. /dev/sdc
and /dev/sdd remain without label.
This is a bug.
Hmmm - I'll test it on another
Hallo, Florian,
Du meintest am 05.08.12:
I was playing with btrfs and accidentally formatted the disk directly
(/dev/sdb instead of sdb1). Since then I rewrote the GPT partition
table, recreated the partition and ran btrfs device scan. Still,
btrfs filesystem show prints:
root@horus /mnt #
Hallo, Arnd,
Du meintest am 30.07.12:
btrfs only fails when you have hundreds of hardlinks to the same
file in the *same* directory ... certainly not a standard use case.
Actually, hundreds of hardlinks is certainly over optimistic.
In my testing 15 links in the same directory were enough
Hallo, ,
Du meintest am 14.07.12:
The problem is that the BTRFS raid10 filesystem without any
understandable cause refuses to mount.
Here is dmesg output:
[77847.845540] device label linux-btrfs-raid10 devid 3 transid 45639
/dev/sdc1 [77848.633912] btrfs: allowing degraded mounts
Hallo, Markus,
Du meintest am 01.07.12:
I am running btrfs for a few months now. I just realized that I have
a few strange directories in /
% ls / -1
?
???J??
Q???
PL
PR
bin
boot
dev
etc
home
lib
lib32
lib64
lost+found
media
mnt
opt
proc
p?c'??
root
run
sbin
Hallo, Goffredo,
Du meintest am 20.06.12:
[...]
Am not saying that we *should* move the kernel away from /boot. I am
only saying that having the kernel near /lib/modules *has* some
advantages.
Few year ago there are some gains to have a separate /boot (ah, the
time when the bios were
Hallo, Chris,
Du meintest am 19.06.12:
I'm trying to figure out an algorithm from taking an arbitrary
mounted btrfs directory and break it down into:
device(s), subvolume, subpath
where, keep in mind, subpath may not actually be part of the
mount.
Do you want an API for this, or is it
Hallo, Randall,
Du meintest am 07.06.12:
[...]
I've just upgraded to 3.4.0 from git.kernel.org and I'm still running
into problems. I checked the Problems FAQ and there doesn't seem to
be anything that matches my problem.
[...]
Any more help would be appreciated. Why is this happening,
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 05.06.12:
The branch is fetchable with git from:
http://git.darksatanic.net/repo/btrfs-progs-unstable.git/
integration-20120605
There seems to be a bug inside:
[...]
gcc -g -O0 -o btrfsck btrfsck.o ctree.o disk-io.o radix-tree.o extent-
tree.o print-tree.o
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 06.06.12:
However, the third line with the problem looks like something out of
date. Possibly a mis-merge?
Where should I search?
Viele Gruesse!
Helmut
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a message to
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 06.06.12:
git checkout integration-20120605
[...]
Can you compare your Makefile with the one at [1] -- in particular
the progs variable at line 21-23, the all target on line 37, and
the btrfs-convert target on line 97. There definitely should not be
a plain
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 06.06.12:
The branch is fetchable with git from:
http://git.darksatanic.net/repo/btrfs-progs-unstable.git/
integration-20120605
gcc convert.o -o convert
convert.o: In function `btrfs_item_key':
/tmp/btrfs-progs-unstable/ctree.h:1404: undefined reference
Hallo, Martin,
Du meintest am 05.06.12:
--super works but my root tree 2 has many errors too.
What can I do next?
Have a data recovery company try to physically recover the bad
harddisk to a good one
About 1 year ago I asked Kroll-Ontrack. They told me they couldn't (yet)
recover btrfs.
Hallo, Jim,
Du meintest am 05.06.12:
/dev/sda 11T 4.9T 6.0T 46% /btrfs
[root@advanced ~]# btrfs fi show
failed to read /dev/sr0
Label: none uuid: c21f1221-a224-4ba4-92e5-cdea0fa6d0f9
Total devices 12 FS bytes used 4.76TB
devid6 size 930.99GB used
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 05.06.12:
[...]
And you can't use the console from where you have started the
balance command. Therefore I wrap this command:
echo 'btrfs filesystem balance /btrfs' | at now
... or just put it into the background with btrfs bal start
/mountpoint . You
Hallo, Randall,
Du meintest am 01.06.12:
I'm having a problem with a newly extended btrfs volume. It is
running on debian testing with an almost stock 3.1.0 kernel with a
little bit of patches
You should use a newer kernel, p.e. 3.3.7 or 3.4
Viele Gruesse!
Helmut
--
To unsubscribe from
Hallo, Martin,
Du meintest am 10.05.12:
[...]
Maybe we should evaluate the possiblility of such a one file gets
on one disk feature.
Helmut Hullen has the use case: Many disks, totally non-critical but
nice-to-have data. If one disk dies, some *files* should lost, not
some *random parts
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 07.05.12:
mkfs.btrfs -m raid1 -d single should give you that.
What's the difference to
mkfs.btrfs -m raid1 -d raid0
- RAID-0 stripes each piece of data across all the disks.
- single puts data on one disk at a time.
[...]
In fact, this is
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 07.05.12:
[...]
With a file system like ext2/3/4 I can work with several directories
which are mounted together, but (as said before) one broken disk
doesn't disturb the others.
mkfs.btrfs -m raid1 -d single should give you that.
Just a small bug, perhaps:
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 09.05.12:
mkfs.btrfs -m raid1 -d single should give you that.
Just a small bug, perhaps:
created a system with
mkfs.btrfs -m raid1 -d single /dev/sdl1
mount /dev/sdl1 /mnt/Scsi
btrfs device add /dev/sdk1 /mnt/Scsi
btrfs
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 09.05.12:
As to the spurious upgrade of single to RAID-0, I thought Ilya
had stopped it doing that. What kernel version are you running?
3.2.9, self made.
OK, I'm pretty sure that's too old -- it will upgrade single to
RAID-0. You can probably turn it
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 09.05.12:
btrfs fi df /mnt/Scsi
now tells
Data, RAID0: total=183.18GB, used=76.60GB
Data: total=80.01GB, used=79.83GB
System, DUP: total=8.00MB, used=32.00KB
System: total=4.00MB, used=0.00
Metadata, DUP: total=1.00GB, used=192.74MB
Metadata:
Hallo, Martin,
Du meintest am 08.05.12:
No - since some years I use a kind of outsourced backup. A copy of
all data is on a bundle of disks somewhere in the neighbourhood.
As mentionend: the data isn't business critical, it's just nice to
have. It's not worth something like raid1 or so
Hallo, Fajar,
Du meintest am 08.05.12:
And you can use three BTRFS filesystems the same way as three Ext4
filesystems if you prefer such a setup if the time spent for
restoring the backup does not make up the cost for one additional
disk for you.
But where's the gain? If a disk fails I
Hallo, Clemens,
Du meintest am 08.05.12:
But where's the gain? If a disk fails I have a lot of tools for
repairing an ext2/3/4 system.
Nope, when a disk in your ext4 raid0 array fails, you are just as
doomed.
Why should I use RAID0 with a bundle of ext2/3/4? Mounting on/in the
directory
Hallo, Felix,
Du meintest am 08.05.12:
Why should I use RAID0 with a bundle of ext2/3/4? Mounting on/in the
directory tree does the job.
Nobody told you that you should do it. What EVERYBODY here is telling
you: The problem you have right now would be the same damn problem,
no matter what
Hallo, Felix,
Du meintest am 08.05.12:
As I've written many times: I want a system for my video collection
which allows
adding a bigger disk
deleting/removing a smaller disk
with simple commands.
btrfs seems to be able to do that (and I have tested this job many
Hallo, Felix,
Du meintest am 08.05.12:
adding a bigger disk
deleting/removing a smaller disk
with simple commands.
[...]
Is it really possible to remove a disk from btrfs (created with -d
single) without losing the data on that disk?
When the system is configured
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 08.05.12:
Otherwise if you remove a disk from a raid0 (doesn't matter if you
have 2 or 5 or x disks in the fs, btrfs should stripe above all
disks) your fs should be broken.
Not with btrfs ... there it works even with
mkfs.btrfs -m raid1 -d raid0 ...
Hallo,
never change a running system ...
For some months I run btrfs unter kernel 3.2.5 and 3.2.9, without
problems.
Yesterday I compiled kernel 3.3.4, and this morning I started the
machine with this kernel. There may be some ugly problems.
Copying something into the btrfs directory
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 07.05.12:
Yesterday I compiled kernel 3.3.4, and this morning I started the
machine with this kernel. There may be some ugly problems.
Copying something into the btrfs directory worked well for some
files, and then I got error messages (I've not copied them,
Hallo, Fajar,
Du meintest am 07.05.12:
For some months I run btrfs unter kernel 3.2.5 and 3.2.9, without
problems.
Yesterday I compiled kernel 3.3.4, and this morning I started the
machine with this kernel. There may be some ugly problems.
Data, RAID0: total=5.29TB, used=4.29TB
Raid0?
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 07.05.12:
=== boot messages, kernel related ==
[boot with kernel 3.3.4]
May 7 06:55:26 Arktur kernel: ata5: exception Emask 0x10 SAct 0x0
SErr 0x1 action 0xe frozen
May 7 06:55:26 Arktur kernel: ata5: SError: { PHYRdyChg }
May
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 07.05.12:
It's dead - R.I.P.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. I don't think we can point the
finger at btrfs here.
a) you know what to do with the bearer?
b) I like such errors - completely independent, but simultaneously.
It looks like you've lost
Hallo, Felix,
Du meintest am 07.05.12:
I'm just going back to ext4 - then one broken disk doesn't disturb
the contents of the other disks.
?! If you use raid0 one broken disk will always disturb the contents
of the other disks, that is what raid0 does, no matter what
filesystem you use.
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 07.05.12:
With a file system like ext2/3/4 I can work with several directories
which are mounted together, but (as said before) one broken disk
doesn't disturb the others.
mkfs.btrfs -m raid1 -d single should give you that.
What's the difference to
Hallo, Daniel,
Du meintest am 07.05.12:
Yes - I know. But btrfs promises that I can add bigger disks and
delete smaller disks on the fly. For something like a video
collection which will grow on and on an interesting feature. And
such a (big) collection does need a gradfather-father-son
Hallo, Daniel,
Du meintest am 07.05.12:
mkfs.btrfs -m raid1 -d raid0
with 3 disks gives me a cluster which looks like 1 disk/partition/
directory.
If one disk fails nothing is usable.
How is that different from putting ext on top of a raid0?
Classic raid0 doesn't allow
Hallo, Bart,
Du meintest am 26.04.12:
As for the two filesystems shown in btrfs fi show... I have no clue
what that is about. Did you maybe make a mistake to create a btrfs
filesystem on the whole disk at first?
That is possible. But afterwards I certainly repartioned the device
and
Hallo, David,
Du meintest am 26.04.12:
I now use to delete about the first 10 MByte of the target disk via
dd if=/dev/zero
FYI, the minimal amount of data you need to rewrite is 4k:
dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/ice bs=1k count=4 seek=64
Thank you - I'll try to remember the next time I need
Hallo, Ilya,
Du meintest am 21.03.12:
When I run
btrfs filesystem label
or
btrfs scrub status /dev/sdxn
then I get a lot of error messages with (p.e.)
failed to read /dev/hda6: No such device or address
failed to read /dev/sdm7: No such device or address
failed
Hallo, Ilya,
Du meintest am 21.03.12:
I think this has been fixed in recent btrfs-progs, commit 32eff711.
It is fixed in some (or many) places, it is not fixed everywhere. I
had used kernel 3.2.9
32eff711 is supposed to fix it in more places, filesystem label and
scrub status included.
Hallo, Stefan,
Du meintest am 19.03.12:
When a filesystem is mounted with the degraded option, it is
possible that some of the devices are not there.
btrfs_ioctl_dev_info() crashs in this case because the device
name is a NULL pointer. This ioctl was only used for scrub.
Just for curiosity:
Hallo, Martin,
Du meintest am 17.03.12:
btrfs scrub start /mnt/btr
and all was dead. Really dead. No access via keybord, no access
via SSH.
what kernel are you using?
As mentioned some hours ago: 3.2.9 (self made).
Are you by any chance on a 32 bit maschine?
Yes.
Second
Hallo, linux-btrfs,
some commands still look for non existent devices.
I don't use udev.
When I run
btrfs filesystem show
only the existent devices are shown - fine.
When I run
btrfs filesystem label
or
btrfs scrub status /dev/sdxn
then I get a lot of error
Hallo, linux-btrfs,
I've (once more) created my test system:
mkfs.btrfs -d raid0 -m raid1 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdc1
73 GB + 146 GB.
Then I mounted it and copied about 150 GByte onto it. But copying was
incomplete, the job ended with no space on ...
# btrfs fi show
Label: 'Scsi' uuid:
Hallo, Chris,
Du meintest am 17.03.12:
Where is the problem, how can I use the full space?
Which kernel was this with Helmut?
Kernel 3.2.9 (self made)
btrfs-progs-20111030
Viele Gruesse!
Helmut
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a message
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 17.03.12:
[no space left on device ...]
Where is the problem, how can I use the full space?
Effectively it's missing the trigger to rebalance when the 'primary'
device starts to get full, or just to randomly spread the data
between the devices.
No, a
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 17.03.12:
What's the 'solution' though to Hugo's situation?
By 'solution' I mean the highest-utility way of dealing with unequal
devices problem in a two or more -up setting.
Use mkfs.btrfs -d single, as I said in another part of this
thread.
Does single
Hallo, linux-btrfs,
next problem ...
I had tested the next possible steps after deleting a partition.
btrfs device delete /dev/sdb1 /mnt/btr
worked well.
Then
btrfs scrub start /mnt/btr
and all was dead. Really dead. No access via keybord, no access via SSH.
Restarted the
Hallo, Arne,
Du meintest am 17.03.12 zum Thema Re: scrub stops the machine:
On 03/17/12 17:35, Helmut Hullen wrote:
btrfs scrub start /mnt/btr
and all was dead. Really dead. No access via keybord, no access via
SSH.
what kernel are you using?
As mentioned some hours ago: 3.2.9
Hallo, Martin,
Du meintest am 17.03.12:
btrfs scrub start /mnt/btr
and all was dead. Really dead. No access via keybord, no access
via SSH.
Kernel 3.2.9
[...]
Please review the thread I started with subject:
3.2-rc4: scrubbing locks up the kernel, then hung tasks on boot
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 27.02.12:
I want to change some TByte disks (at least one) from ext4 to btrfs.
And I want -d raid0 -m raid1. Is it possible to tell btrfs-convert
especially these options for data and metadata?
Or have I to use mkfs.btrfs (and then copy the backup) when I want
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 27.02.12:
mkfs.btrfs creates a new filesystem. The -L option sets the
label
for the newly-created FS. It *cannot* be used to change the label
of an existing FS.
The safest way may be deleting this option ... it seems to work as
expected only when I create
Hallo, David,
Du meintest am 27.02.12:
[deleting btrfs partition]
OK, the real problem you're seeing is that when btrfs removes a
device from the filesystem, that device is not modified in any way.
This means that the old superblock is left behind on it, containing
the FS label
Hallo, Duncan,
Du meintest am 27.02.12:
I've said this several times: Your expectations are wrong. You
don't label partitions.
Yes - now I know.
But I'm afraid other people also expect wrong - when I use
mkfs.ext[234] then this option works (in another way than with
mkfs.btrfs).
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 27.02.12:
But there's a small difference:
mke2fs -L MyLabel /dev/sdn4
only sets/changes the label (ok - it tests the type of the partition
and refuses labeling if the type doesn't fit).
OK, I have just tried this out. It does set the filesystem
Hallo, Duncan,
Du meintest am 26.02.12:
It's astonishing to me the number of people that come in here
complaining about problems with a filesystem the kernel option of
which says
Title:
Btrfs filesystem (EXPERIMENTAL) Unstable disk format
Description (excerpt):
Btrfs is highly
Hallo, linux-btrfs,
maybe it's a big error using the commmand
mkfs.btrfs -L xyz /dev/sdx1 /dev/sdy1 /dev/sdz1
(and so labelling many partitions) because each device/partition gets
the same label.
Mounting seems to be no problem, but (p.e.) delete doesn't kill the
btrfs informations shown
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 26.02.12:
Mounting seems to be no problem, but (p.e.) delete doesn't kill
the btrfs informations shown with (p.e.) blkid /dev/sdy1,
especially it doesn't delete the label.
What do you mean by delete here?
btrfs device delete device path
The label is a
Hallo, linux-btrfs,
I've (once again) tried add and delete.
First, with 3 devices (partitions):
mkfs.btrfs -d raid0 -m raid1 /dev/sdk1 /dev/sdl1 /dev/sdm1
Mounted (to /mnt/btr), filled with about 100 GByte data.
Then
btrfs device add /dev/sdj1 /mnt/btr
results in
# show
Label: none
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 26.02.12:
My (planned) usual work (once a year or so):
btrfs device add biggerdevice path
btrfs filesystem balance path
btrfs device delete smallerdevice path
OK, the real problem you're seeing is that when btrfs removes a
device
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 26.02.12:
What you need to do is, immediately after
removing a device from the FS, zero the first part of the partition
with dd and /dev/zero.
Ok - I'll try again (not today ...).
If I remember correct in early times deleting only the first block
of the
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 26.02.12:
mkfs.btrfs creates a new filesystem. The -L option sets the label
for the newly-created FS. It *cannot* be used to change the label of
an existing FS.
The safest way may be deleting this option ... it seems to work as
expected only when I create a
Hallo, linux-btrfs,
I want to change some TByte disks (at least one) from ext4 to btrfs. And
I want -d raid0 -m raid1. Is it possible to tell btrfs-convert
especially these options for data and metadata?
Or have I to use mkfs.btrfs (and then copy the backup) when I want
these options?
Hallo, Miao,
Du meintest am 14.12.11:
When we use raid0 as the data profile, df command may show us a very
inaccurate value of the available space, which may be much less than
the real one. It may make the users puzzled. Fix it by changing the
calculation of the available space, and making
Hallo, Wilfred,
Du meintest am 14.12.11:
What is best practice when partitioning a device that holds one or
more btr-filesystems
That depends ...
My favourite installation is a bundle of 2-TByte-disks which btrfs
presents as one big disk. data=raid0, metadata=raid1
It's a kind of archive,
Hallo, Phillip,
Du meintest am 01.12.11:
balance != resize
[...]
That has nothing to do with resize.
Right, so why are you talking about balance when this thread is about
resize?
Ooops - sorry!
Viele Gruesse!
Helmut
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs
Hallo, Phillip,
Du meintest am 30.11.11:
Currently the resize command is under filesystem, and takes a path to
the mounted filesystem. This seems wrong to me. Shouldn't it be
under device, and take a path to a device to resize?
No - it's a filesystem operation.
p.e.
You start with a
Hallo, Roman,
Du meintest am 01.12.11:
What if I need to replace an individual device with a smaller or a
larger one?
1) add the new device
2) balance (may be it's not necessary)
3) run remove for the individual device
4) remove it
5) balance
Viele Gruesse!
Helmut
--
To unsubscribe from this
Hallo, Phillip,
Du meintest am 30.11.11:
You start with a system of 2 disks. They get filled nearly
simultaneously.
Then you add a 3rd disk (which is empty at that time). Now it's a
good idea to run balance for equalizing the filling.
balance != resize
I know.
p.e.
Start with 1 disk with
Hallo, Blair,
Du meintest am 23.11.11:
I can't answer that, but I can tell you that fsck for btrfs right
now is almost useless. It can't fix anyting.
Thank you, I've read that fsck doesn't fix anything. I was curious
if doing the scrub would resolve it.
I had tried ... about 4 Tbyte data
Hallo, Jan,
Du meintest am 23.11.11:
One big problem of btrfs seems to be: you can't see on which
partition/ disk the defect sector (or something else) may be
A recent kernel (3.2, still rc) will tell you the byte number when an
error occurs, and also give the the opportunity to resolve
Hallo, Ilya,
Du meintest am 02.11.11:
The Btrfs utility programs require libuuid to build. This can be
found in the e2fsprogs sources, and is usually available as libuuid
or e2fsprogs-devel from various distros. The other dependency is
libattr +(libattr1-dev in Debian-based distros).
Hallo,
I'd like to get some explanations ...
# btrfs filesystem show
Label: 'MMedia' uuid: 120b036a-883f-46aa-bd9a-cb6a1897c8d2
Total devices 3 FS bytes used 3.80TB
devid1 size 1.82TB used 1.29TB path /dev/sdg1
devid3 size 1.81TB used 1.29TB path /dev/sdc1
Hallo, Arne,
Du meintest am 02.11.11:
# btrfs scrub status /srv/MM
scrub status for 120b036a-883f-46aa-bd9a-cb6a1897c8d2
scrub resumed at Wed Nov 2 17:02:07 2011 and was aborted after
16519 secondstotal bytes scrubbed: 1.79TB with 61 errors
error details: read=4
Hallo,
I'm just playing with btrfs scrub.
Kernel 3.1 (self made)
btrfs integration-20111030 (Hugo Mills)
I have a bundle of 3 2-TByte-disks (data raid0, metadata raid1).
Since some (few) weeks one of the disks makes errors (I've reported the
problems in this mailing list).
The bundle uses
Hallo, Ilya,
Du meintest am 01.11.11:
Mounting doesn't work immediately; most times I have to run the
mount command three times - strange.
To be able to run mount only once you have to run 'btrfs dev scan' on
startup (after each reboot or just before mounting).
That command has run,
Hallo, Jordan,
Du meintest am 30.10.11:
I was wondering is it possible to find the RAID level currently
in use by a btrfs volume, also can I change the data metadata
(or either) RAID levels after creation.
To see the RAID levels, use
btrfs fi df /path/to/filesystem
I've just run that
Hallo, Ken,
Du meintest am 27.10.11:
So, I dd'd everything back, and now it crashes on boot. Booting to a
2.6.x kernel (which is what I had on-hand on a USB drive) mounts it,
but doesn't let me *do* anything (though it spews btrfs errors in
dmesg). Getting Ubuntu 11.10 (kernel rev. 3.0.0)
Hallo, dima,
Du meintest am 26.10.11:
I'm trying to rm some files, this is what I get in dmesg:
[30975.249519] [ cut here ]
[30975.249529] WARNING: at fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:4588
__btrfs_free_extent+0x3b7/0x7ed()
[...]
[30975.249604] Pid: 12291, comm: rm Tainted:
1 - 100 of 225 matches
Mail list logo
