Re[6]: Filesystem sometimes Hangs

Hello Chris, thanks for your reply. >Remove the discard mount option for this file system and see if that >fixes the problem. Run it for a week or two, or until you're certain >the problem is still happening (or certain it's gone). Some drives >just can't handle sync discards, they become r

Re[4]: Filesystem sometimes Hangs

Hello Chris, thanks again for your reply. 5.10.0-0.bpo.3-amd64 It's probably OK. I'm not sure what upstream stable version this translates into, but current stable are 5.10.27 and 5.11.11. There have been multiple btrfs bug fixes since 5.10.0 was released. I missed in your first email thi

Re[2]: Filesystem sometimes Hangs

Hello, thanks for your reply, Chris. [Mo Mär 29 09:29:22 2021] BTRFS info (device sda1): bdev /dev/sda1 errs: wr 133, rd 133, flush 0, corrupt 0, gen 1 Maybe, the last line is concerning? Yes. Do a 'btrfs scrub' and check dmesg for detailed errors. [Mo Mär 29 09:29:22 2021] BTRFS info (d

Filesystem sometimes Hangs

Hello, I have a filesystem which is sometimes very slow, or even currently hangs deleting a file (plain and simple rm in bash). Label: 'DataPool1' uuid: c4a6a2c9-5cf0-49b8-812a-0784953f9ba3 Total devices 2 FS bytes used 5.65TiB devid1 size 7.28TiB used 6.71TiB path /dev/sd

Re[2]: Code: Bad RIP value.

cht -- Von: "Nikolay Borisov" An: "Hendrik Friedel" ; linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Gesendet: 06.03.2021 09:00:30 Betreff: Re: Code: Bad RIP value. On 5.03.21 г. 21:57 ч., Hendrik Friedel wrote: Hello, I am using linux 5.9.1 and have experienced tracebacks in conj

Code: Bad RIP value.

Hello, I am using linux 5.9.1 and have experienced tracebacks in conjunction with btrfs and several filesystems: btrfs fi show Label: 'Daten' uuid: c217331c-cf0c-49ae-86c7-48a67d1c346b Total devices 1 FS bytes used 54.69GiB devid1 size 81.79GiB used 57.02GiB path /dev/sde2

Fw: Re: Migration to BTRFS

For some reason, this did not come through... -- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -- Von: "Hendrik Friedel" An: "linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org" Gesendet: 25.05.2019 15:21:43 Betreff: Re: Migration to BTRFS Hello now after the filesystem worked fine as a single drive for

Re: Migration to BTRFS

Hello now after the filesystem worked fine as a single drive for a while, I'd like to add the second device. Status: btrfs fi show . Label: 'DataPool1' uuid: c4a6a2c9-5cf0-49b8-812a-0784953f9ba3 Total devices 1 FS bytes used 6.61TiB devid 1 size 7.28TiB used 6.89TiB path /dev/s

Re[2]: [Samba] Fw: Btrfs Samba and Quotas

Hello, >> In my impression: Yes. Also, this problem seems to affect also zfs and > > I'm mostly interested in the claim that ZFS is affected. > I haven't followed this thread carefully, but what exactly is the problem we're > talking about, and how do we know it impacts ZFS? > [Something more

Re[2]: [Samba] Fw: Btrfs Samba and Quotas

Hello, If you want to do this (subvolumes/submounts) I think you should get familiar with the: sorry, that's well beyond my skill-set. Honestly, I fear I cannot do any good solving this issue. My intent is/was to make you aware -although frankly, for *me* this is no problem. Greetings, Hendr

Re[2]: [Samba] Fw: Btrfs Samba and Quotas

Hello, You posted this: I am using Openmediavault (debian based NAS distribution), which is not actively supporting btrfs It is this that I was referring to. Ah, yes. OMV intended to move to btrfs as the only choice with the next version. In order to pave the way, I intended to be an early ad

Fw: Re[2]: [Samba] Fw: Btrfs Samba and Quotas

-- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -- Von: "Hendrik Friedel" An: "Rowland penny" ; "sambalist" ; "Btrfs BTRFS" Gesendet: 20.05.2019 19:54:13 Betreff: Re[2]: [Samba] Fw: Btrfs Samba and Quotas Hello, Is btrfs becoming more common ? In my impr

Re[2]: [Samba] Fw: Btrfs Samba and Quotas

Hello No, probably a lack of users using your combination of Samba, btrfs and quotas. I would have thought that btrfs is becoming more mainstream now. And then, Samba and Quotas should be rather common... Of course, more info may help, what is in your smb.conf etc. Added at the end of thi

Re: [Samba] Fw: Btrfs Samba and Quotas

Hello, I a bit surprised to get no replies at all... How come? Lack of information? Lack of clarity? Greetings, Hendrik -- Originalnachricht -- Von: "Hendrik Friedel via samba" An: "sa...@lists.samba.org" Gesendet: 14.05.2019 20:01:41 Betreff: [Samba] Fw: Bt

Re[2]: Btrfs Samba and Quotas

Hello, >But at least we can determine if samba is utilizing btrfs quota by: ># btrfs qgroup show -prce btrfs qgroup show -prce /srv/DataPool1/Dokumente/Hendrik/ ERROR: can't list qgroups: quotas not enabled I read, that the same problem exists for ZFS. >Would you please describe the impact of

Btrfs Samba and Quotas

Hello, I was wondering, whether anyone of you has experience with this samba in conjunction with BTRFS and quotas. I am using Openmediavault (debian based NAS distribution), which is not actively supporting btrfs. It uses quotas by default, and I think, that me using btrfs is causing trouble

Re[6]: Rough (re)start with btrfs

Hello, v2 is expected to become the default soon That is good to hear. But from the sound of it Qu has enough information to maybe track down the v1 problem and fix it, and probably should be fixed as v1 is the default and is still supported and will be forever. That's good to hear. For

Re[4]: Rough (re)start with btrfs

Hello, this: >Some prefer bug report in mail list directly like me, some prefer kernel >bugzilla. and this: >Not sure if other is looking into this. >Btrfs bug tracking is somewhat tricky. may be related... >Not likely. You can do a scrub to check for metadata and data >corruption. Did tha

Re[2]: Rough (re)start with btrfs

Hello, -by the way: I think my mail did not appear in the list, but only reached Chris and Qu directly. I just tried to re-send it. Could this be caused by 1) me not a subscriber of the list 2) combined with me sending attachments I did *not* get any error message by the server. I was tempt

Rough (re)start with btrfs

Hello, as discussed in the other thread, I am migrating to BTRFS (again). Unfortunately, I had a bit of a rough start [Mo Apr 29 20:44:47 2019] INFO: task btrfs-transacti:10227 blocked for more than 120 seconds. [...] This repeated several times while moving data over. Full log of one instance

Fw: Re[2]: Migration to BTRFS

Hello, With "single" data profile you won't lose filesystem, but you will irretrievably lose any data on the missing drive. Also "single" profile does not support auto-healing (repairing of bad copy from good copy). If this is acceptable to you, then yes, both variants will do what you want. Act

Migration to BTRFS

Hello, I intend to move to BTRFS and of course I have some data already. I currently have several single 4TB drives and I would like to move the Data onto new drives (2*8TB). I need no raid, as I prefer a backup. Nevertheless, having raid nice for availability. So why not in the end. I current

Re[2]: btrfs and write barriers

the disks when you called fsync in userspace. Ok, thanks for that clarification. Greetings, Hendrik -- Originalnachricht -- Von: "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" An: "Hendrik Friedel" ; "Qu Wenruo" ; linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Gesendet: 03.04.2019 20:44:09 Betre

Re[3]: btrfs and write barriers

Hello, thanks for your reply. >>3) Even more, it would be good, if btrfs would disable the write cache >> in that case, so that one does not need to rely on the user > >Personally speaking, if user really believes it's write cache causing >the problem or want to be extra safe, then they should di

btrfs and write barriers

Dear btrfs-team, I am aware, that barriers are essential for btrfs [1]. I have some questions on that topic: 1) I am not aware how to determine, whether barriers are supported, except for searching dmesg for a message that barriers are disabled. Is that correct? It would be nice, if that could

Re[4]: btrfs check "Couldn't open file system" after error in transaction.c

space waste bytes: 2859469730 file data blocks allocated: 16171232772096 referenced 13512171663360 What does that tell us? Greetings, Hendrik -- Originalnachricht -- Von: "Hendrik Friedel" An: "Chris Murphy" Cc: "Btrfs BTRFS" Gesendet: 04.09.2016 20:51:

Re[3]: btrfs check "Couldn't open file system" after error in transaction.c

Hello again, before overwriting the filesystem, some last questions: Maybe take advantage of the fact it does read only and recreate it. You could take a btrfs-image and btrfs-debug-tree first, And what do I do with it? because there's some bug somewhere: somehow it became inconsistent, and

Re[2]: btrfs check "Couldn't open file system" after error in transaction.c

Hi Chris, thanks for your reply -especially on a Sunday. I have a filesystem (three disks with no raid) So it's data single *and* metadata single? No: Data, single: total=8.14TiB, used=7.64TiB System, RAID1: total=32.00MiB, used=912.00KiB Metadata, RAID1: total=18.00GiB, used=16.45GiB Globa

Re: btrfs check "Couldn't open file system" after error in transaction.c

d if the data that I read from the drive is valid or corrupted I'd appreciate your help on this. Greetings, Hendrik ------ Originalnachricht -- Von: "Hendrik Friedel" An: "Btrfs BTRFS" Gesendet: 28.08.2016 12:04:18 Betreff: btrfs check "Couldn't op

btrfs check "Couldn't open file system" after error in transaction.c

Hello, I have a filesystem (three disks with no raid) that I can still mount ro, but I cannot check or scrub it. In dmesg I see: [So Aug 28 11:33:22 2016] BTRFS error (device sde): parent transid verify failed on 22168481054720 wanted 1826943 found 1828546 [So Aug 28 11:33:22 2016] BTRFS warni

Debian Jessie: How to set rootflags=degraded

Hello, I am using a raid1 under debian Jessie, because I need to decrease the likelyhood of unavailability of the system. Unfortunately I found, that when removing one of the drives, the system will not boot up. Instead initramfs will show up and tell me that the root volume could not be mount

bad tree blcok start & faild to read chunk root

Hello, from this https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg57405.html I still have damaged btrf file system (the partition was recovered. Thanks Chris). When mounting, I get: [15681.255356] BTRFS info (device sda1): disk space caching is enabled [15681.255690] BTRFS error (device sda1): bad

Re[2]: Chances to recover with bad partition table?

nr = 65536 device name = /dev/sda1 superblock bytenr = 67108864 [All bad supers]: All supers are valid, no need to recover What would be the next step? Regards, Hendrik -- Originalnachricht -- Von: "Chris Murphy" An: Cc: "Hendrik Friedel&quo

Chances to recover with bad partition table?

Hello, this morning I had to face an unusual prompt on my machine. I found that the partition table of /dev/sda had vanished. I restored it with testdisk. It found one partition, but I am quite sure there was a /boot partition in front of that which was not found. Now, running btrfsck fails:

Chances to recover with bad partition table?

Hello, this morning I had to face an unusual prompt on my machine. I found that the partition table of /dev/sda had vanished. I restored it with testdisk. It found one partition, but I am quite sure there was a /boot partition in front of that which was not found. Now, running btrfsck fails:

Re: Status of SMR with BTRFS

Hello Austin, thanks for your reply. Ok, thanks; So, TGMR does not say whether or not the Device is SMR or not, right? I'm not 100% certain about that. Technically, the only non-firmware difference is in the read head and the tracking. If it were me, I'd be listing SMR instead of TGMR on the

Re: Status of SMR with BTRFS

Hello and thanks for your replies, It's a Seagate Expansion Desktop 5TB (USB3). It is probably a ST5000DM000. this is TGMR not SMR disk: TGMR is a derivative of giant magneto-resistance, and is what's been used in hard disk drives for decades now. With limited exceptions in recent years and

Re: Status of SMR with BTRFS

Hi Thomasz, @Dave I have added you to the conversation, as I refer to your notes (https://github.com/kdave/drafts/blob/master/btrfs/smr-mode.txt) thanks for your reply! It's a Seagate Expansion Desktop 5TB (USB3). It is probably a ST5000DM000. this is TGMR not SMR disk: http://www.seagate.

Re: Status of SMR with BTRFS

o' feature and I should avoid it with BTRFS. I am just surprised, there is no hint in the wiki with that regards. Greetings, Hendrik > On 15 Jul 2016, at 19:29, Hendrik Friedel wrote: > > Hello, > > I have a 5TB Seagate drive that uses SMR. > > I was wondering

Status of SMR with BTRFS

Hello, I have a 5TB Seagate drive that uses SMR. I was wondering, if BTRFS is usable with this Harddrive technology. So, first I searched the BTRFS wiki -nothing. Then google. * I found this: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=203696 But this turned out to be an issue not related to B

Re: How to move a btrfs volume to a smaller disk

used 47.95GiB devid1 size 80.00GiB used 66.03GiB path /dev/sdb4 [root@homeserver mnt2]# lsblk | grep sda4 └─sda48:40 103.5G 0 part Greetings, Hendrik On 09.03.2016 22:50, Hugo Mills wrote: On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 10:46:09PM +0100, Hendrik Friedel wrote: Hello, I intend to

How to move a btrfs volume to a smaller disk

Hello, I intend to move this subvolume to a new device. btrfs fi show /mnt2/Data_Store/ Label: 'Data_Store' uuid: 0ccc1e24-090d-42e2-9e61-d0a1b3101f93 Total devices 1 FS bytes used 47.93GiB devid1 size 102.94GiB used 76.03GiB path /dev/sdb4 (fi usage at the bottom of this me

Re: booting from BTRFS works only with one device in the pool

Hello Chris, thanks, I appreciate your help - 1. Install CentOS 7.0 to vda 2. reboot 3. btrfs dev add /dev/vdb / 4. reboot ## works 5. btrfs balance start / 6. reboot ## works Same thing when starting with CentOS 7.2 media. This is a NAS product using CentOS 7.2? My only guess

Re: booting from BTRFS works only with one device in the pool

Sorry, I missed this: > What do you get for rpm -q grub2 grub2-2.02-0.34.el7.centos.x86_64 Greetings, Hendrik --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the

Re: booting from BTRFS works only with one device in the pool

Hello, I would like to go the sensible way :-) But can you hint me how and where to add the btrfs device scan option to the initramfs? If btrfs-progs 4.3.1 is installed already, dracut -f will rebuild the initramfs and should just drag in current tools which will include 'btrfs device scan'.

Re: booting from BTRFS works only with one device in the pool

Hello Hugo, >> Here I am stuck in a recovery prompt. By far the simplest and most reliable method of doing this is to use an initramfs with the command "btrfs dev scan" in it somewhere before mounting. Most of the major distributions already have an initramfs set up (as does yours, I see), a

Re: booting from BTRFS works only with one device in the pool

Hello Chris, That's a bit weird. This is BIOS or UEFI system? On UEFI, the prebaked grubx64.efi includes btrfs, so insmod isn't strictly needed. But on BIOS it would be. it is a Virtual-Box-VM. It is a BIOS system > It might be as simple as manually mounting: >btrfs dev scan >btrfs fi show ##

booting from BTRFS works only with one device in the pool

Hello, I am running CentOS from a btrfs root. This worked fine until I added a device to that pool: btrfs device add /dev/sda3 / reboot This now causes the errors: BTRFS: failed to read chunk tree on sdb3 BTRFS: open_ctree failed Here I am stuck in a recovery prompt. btrfs fi show displays th

Re: understanding btrfs fi df

Hello Hugo, It shouldn't happen, as I understand how the process works. Can you show the output of "btrfs fi df /mnt/__Complete_Disk"? Let's just check that everything is indeed RAID-5 still. Here we go: btrfs fi df /mnt/__Complete_Disk Data, RAID5: total=3.79TiB, used=3.78TiB System, RA

Re: understanding btrfs fi df

fi df /mnt/__Complete_Disk Data, RAID5: total=3.79TiB, used=3.78TiB System, RAID5: total=32.00MiB, used=416.00KiB Metadata, RAID5: total=6.46GiB, used=4.85GiB GlobalReserve, single: total=512.00MiB, used=0.00B Greetings, Hendrik Greetings, Hendrik -- Hendrik Friedel Auf dem Brink 12 28844 Weyh

Re: understanding btrfs fi df

devid3 size 2.73TiB used 1.38TiB path /dev/sde How can only 1.38TiB be used on devid 3? Greetings, Hendrik -- Hendrik Friedel Auf dem Brink 12 28844 Weyhe Tel. 04203 8394854 Mobil 0178 1874363 --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft. https://www.avast.com/ant

understanding btrfs fi df

Hello, I am struggling to understand the output of btrfs fi df: btrfs fi df /mnt/__Complete_Disk/ Data, RAID5: total=3.85TiB, used=3.85TiB System, RAID5: total=32.00MiB, used=576.00KiB Metadata, RAID5: total=6.46GiB, used=5.14GiB GlobalReserve, single: total=512.00MiB, used=0.00B I have three d

Re: Data single *and* raid?

ote: On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Hugo Mills wrote: On Sat, Aug 01, 2015 at 10:09:35PM +0200, Hendrik Friedel wrote: Hello, I converted an array to raid5 by btrfs device add /dev/sdd /mnt/new_storage btrfs device add /dev/sdc /mnt/new_storage btrfs balance start -dconvert=raid5 -mconvert=raid5

Re: Data single *and* raid?

-dconvert=raid5,soft -mconvert=raid5,soft /mnt/new_storage/ Regards, Hendrik On 01.08.2015 22:44, Chris Murphy wrote: On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Hugo Mills wrote: On Sat, Aug 01, 2015 at 10:09:35PM +0200, Hendrik Friedel wrote: Hello, I converted an array to raid5 by btrfs device add

Re: Data single *and* raid?

Hello, Looking at the btrfs fi show output, you've probably run out of space during the conversion, probably due to an uneven distribution of the original "single" chunks. I think I would suggest balancing the single chunks, and trying the conversion (of the unconverted parts) again: #

Data single *and* raid?

Hello, I converted an array to raid5 by btrfs device add /dev/sdd /mnt/new_storage btrfs device add /dev/sdc /mnt/new_storage btrfs balance start -dconvert=raid5 -mconvert=raid5 /mnt/new_storage/ The Balance went through. But now: Label: none uuid: a8af3832-48c7-4568-861f-e80380dd7e0b T

kernel BUG at ctree.c:5196

Hello, I recently added a third device to my raid and converted it from raid0 to raid 5 via balance (dconvert, mconvert). Unfortunately, the new device was faulty. I wrote about this on this List in "size 2.73TiB used 240.97GiB after balance". Initially the system was very unstable when tryin

Re: size 2.73TiB used 240.97GiB after balance

Hello Donald, thanks for your reply. I appreciate your help. > I would use recover to get the data if at all possible, then you can experiment with try to fix the degraded condition live. If you have any chance of getting data from the pool, you reduce that chance every time you make a change.

Re: size 2.73TiB used 240.97GiB after balance

touched at all? Regards, Hendrik On 07.07.2015 15:14, Donald Pearson wrote: That's what it looks like. You may want to try reseating cables, etc. Instead of mounting and file copy, btrfs restore might be worth a shot to recover what you can. On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 12:42 AM, Hendrik Fr

Re: size 2.73TiB used 240.97GiB after balance

. Greetings, Hendrik -- Originalnachricht-- Von: Donald Pearson Datum: Mo., 6. Juli 2015 23:49 An: Hendrik Friedel; Cc: Omar Sandoval;Hugo Mills;Btrfs BTRFS; Betreff:Re: size 2.73TiB used 240.97GiB after balance If you can mount it RO, first thing to do is back up any data that youcare

Re: size 2.73TiB used 240.97GiB after balance

n device delete missing. Watch out, replacing a missing device in RAID 5/6 currently doesn't work and will cause a kernel BUG(). See my patch series here: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg44874.html -- Hendrik Friedel Auf dem Brink 12 28844 Weyhe Tel. 04203 8394854 Mobil 0178

Re: size 2.73TiB used 240.97GiB after balance

Hello, ok, sdc seems to have failed (sorry, I checked only sdd and sdb SMART values, as sdc is brand new. Maybe a bad assumption, from my side. I have mounted the device mount -o recovery,ro So, what should I do now: btrfs device delete /dev/sdc /mnt or mount -o degraded /dev/sdb /mnt btrfs

size 2.73TiB used 240.97GiB after balance

Hello, I started with a raid1: devid1 size 2.73TiB used 2.67TiB path /dev/sdd devid2 size 2.73TiB used 2.67TiB path /dev/sdb Then I added a third device, /dev/sdc1 and a balance btrfs balance start -dconvert=raid5 -mconvert=raid5 /mnt/__Complete_Disk/ Now the file-system

Very high load when reading/writing

Dear all, I have very high load when writing/reading from/to two of my btrfs volumes. One sda1, mounted as /mnt/BTRFS, the other, sdd2/sde2 (raid) as / sda1 is a 3TB disc, whereas the sdd2/sde2 are small SSDs of 16GB. I wrote a small script to demonstrate it. It does: -echo what it will do -s

Re: free space inode generation (0) did not match free space cache generation

what could be the reason here? Regards, Hendrik Am 25.03.2014 21:10, schrieb Hugo Mills: On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 09:03:26PM +0100, Hendrik Friedel wrote: Hi, Well, given the relative immaturity of btrfs as a filesystem at this point in its lifetime, I think it's acceptable/tolerable. Ho

Re: free space inode generation (0) did not match free space cache generation

Hi, Well, given the relative immaturity of btrfs as a filesystem at this point in its lifetime, I think it's acceptable/tolerable. However, for a filesystem feted[1] to ultimately replace the ext* series as an assumed Linux default, I'd definitely argue that the current situation should be chan

Re: free space inode generation (0) did not match free space cache generation

Hello, I read through the FAQ you mentioned, but I must admit, that I do not fully understand. My experience is that it takes a bit of time to soak in. Between time, previous Linux experience, and reading this list for awhile, things do make more sense now, but my understanding has definitely

Re: free space inode generation (0) did not match free space cache generation

Hello, thanks for your help, I appreciate your hint. I think (reboot into the system with the fs mounted as root still outstanding), it fixed my problem. I read through the FAQ you mentioned, but I must admit, that I do not fully understand. What I am wondering about is, what caused this problem

free space inode generation (0) did not match free space cache generation

Hello, I have a file-system on which I cannot write anymore (no space left on device, which is not true root@homeserver:~/btrfs/integration/devel# df -h DateisystemGröße Benutzt Verf. Verw% Eingehängt auf /dev/sdd230G 24G 5,1G 83% /mnt/test1 ) About the filesystem: root@home

Re: Snapper on Ubuntu

Hello, > Just a recommendation about the config names. At least on > openSUSE "root" is used for /. I would suggest to use "home_root" > for /root like the pam-snapper module does. thanks for the advise. In fact on a previous try I had -by chance- used exactly this nomenclature. Then I restart

Re: Snapper on Ubuntu

Hello, ok, thanks for the explaination. I would find a behaviour in which by default all configurations would be used (i.e. no -c option means that a snapshot of all configurations will be done) more intuitive. I'll get used to it though :-) Greetings, Hendrik -- To unsubscribe from this lis

Re: Snapper on Ubuntu

I think you may have forgotten to specify the config snapper is supposed to use. Try # snapper -c home create # snapper -c Video create Thanks, that was it. I would have expected an Error-Message though... Greetings, Hendrik -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bt

Snapper on Ubuntu

Hello, I am not sure, whether this is the right place to ask this question -if not, please advise. Ubuntu installs on btrfs, creating subvolumes for the homes (/home), the root home (/root) and the root (/) named @home, @root and @ respectively. When I install snapper I configure it like th

Re: btrfsck does not fix

Hi Chris, It might be worth finding large files to defragment. See the ENOSPC errors during raid1 rebalance thread. It sounds like it might be possible for some fragmented files to be stuck across multiple chunks, preventing conversion. I moved 400Gb from my other (but full) disc to the btr

Re: btrfsck does not fix

Hi Chris, hi Ducan, >> time ./btrfs balance start -dconvert=single,soft /mnt/BTRFS/Video/ ERROR: error during balancing '/mnt/BTRFS/Video/' - No space left on device There may be more info in syslog - try dmesg | tail real0m23.803s user0m0.000s sys 0m1.070s dmesg: [697498.761318]

Re: btrfsck does not fix

9TB devid2 size 2.73TB used 1.15TB path /dev/sdc1 devid1 size 2.73TB used 1.15TB path /dev/sdb1 (you see that I cleaned up beforehand, so that enough space is available, generally). Do you have an idea what could be wrong? Thanks and Regards, Hendrik -- Hendrik Fr

Re: btrfsck does not fix

Hi Chris, thanks for your reply. >> ./btrfs filesystem show /dev/sdb1 Label: none uuid: 989306aa-d291-4752-8477-0baf94f8c42f Total devices 2 FS bytes used 3.47TiB devid1 size 2.73TiB used 1.74TiB path /dev/sdb1 devid2 size 2.73TiB used 1.74TiB path /dev/sdc1 I

Re: btrfsck does not fix

Hello, Ok. I think, I do/did have some symptoms, but I cannot exclude other reasons.. -High Load without high cpu-usage (io was the bottleneck) -Just now: transfer from one directory to the other on the same subvolume (from /mnt/subvol/A/B to /mnt/subvol/A) I get 1.2MB/s instead of > 60. -For so

Re: btrfsck does not fix

Hello, Yes. Here I mount the three subvolumes: Does scrubbing the volume give any errors? Last time I did (that was after I discovered the first errors in btrfsck) scrub, it found no error. But I will re-check asap. As to the error messages: I do not know how critical those are. I usua

Re: btrfsck does not fix

6%wa, 0.3%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st Mem: 3795584k total, 3614088k used, 181496k free, 367820k buffers Swap: 8293372k total,45464k used, 8247908k free, 2337704k cached Greetings, Hendrik -- Hendrik Friedel Auf dem Brink 12 28844 Weyhe Mobil 0178 1874363 -- To unsubscribe from this l

Re: btrfsck does not fix

Hello, Kernel version? 3.12.0-031200-generic It mounts OK with no kernel messages? Yes. Here I mount the three subvolumes: dmesg: [105152.392900] btrfs: device fsid 989306aa-d291-4752-8477-0baf94f8c42f devid 1 transid 164942 /dev/sdb1 [105152.394332] btrfs: device

Re: btrfsck does not fix

Hello, I was wondering whether I am doing something wrong in the way I am asking/what I am asking. My understanding is, that btrfsck is not able to fix this error yet. So, I am surprised, that noone is interested in this, apparently? Regards, Hendrik Friedel Am 07.01.2014 21:38, schrieb

Re: btrfsck does not fix

hout the repair option again and the same errors persist. Greetings, Hendrik -- Hendrik Friedel Auf dem Brink 12 28844 Weyhe Mobil 0178 1874363 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More maj

Re: btrfsck does not fix

Hello, What messages in dmesg so you get when you use recovery? I'll find out, tomorrow (I can't access the disk just now). Here it is: [90098.989872] btrfs: device fsid 989306aa-d291-4752-8477-0baf94f8c42f devid 2 transid 162460 /dev/sdc1 That's all. The same in the syslog. Do you have

Re: btrfsck does not fix

nderstanding was, that -o recovery was used/needed when mounting is impossible. This is not the case. In fact, the disk does work without obvious problems. What messages in dmesg so you get when you use recovery? I'll find out, tomorrow (I can't access the disk just now). Greetings

Re: btrfsck errors is it save to fix?

to delete the files at the affected inodes? How do I find, which files are stored at these inodes? Greetings, Hendrik -- Hendrik Friedel Auf dem Brink 12 28844 Weyhe Mobil 0178 1874363 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to

Re: btrfsck errors is it save to fix?

Hello, I re-post this: >> To answer the "is it safe to fix" question... > In that context, yes, it's safe to btrfsck --repair, because you're prepared to lose the entire filesystem if worse comes to worse in any case, so even if btrfsck --repair makes things worse instead of better, you've no

Re: btrfsck errors is it save to fix?

140436 /dev/sdb1 [299525.807148] btrfs: device fsid 989306aa-d291-4752-8477-0baf94f8c42f devid 2 transid 140436 /dev/sdc1 [299525.808277] btrfs: device fsid 989306aa-d291-4752-8477-0baf94f8c42f devid 1 transid 140436 /dev/sdb1 (repeating several times) Can we find out, why btrfsck does not fix

Re: btrfsck errors is it save to fix?

Hello again, can someone please help me on this? Regards, Hendrik Am 06.11.2013 07:45, schrieb Hendrik Friedel: Hello, sorry, I was totally unaware still being on 3.11rc2. I re-ran btrfsck with the same result: ./btrfs-progs/btrfsck /dev/sdc1 Checking filesystem on /dev/sdc1 UUID: 989306aa

Re: btrfsck errors is it save to fix?

? Regards, Hendrik Am 05.11.2013 03:03, schrieb cwillu: On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Hendrik Friedel wrote: Hello, the list was quite full with patches, so this might have been hidden. Here the complete Stack. Does this help? Is this what you needed? [95764.899294] CPU: 1 PID: 21798 Comm

Re: btrfsck errors is it save to fix?

] [] btrfs_put_super+0x19/0x20 [btrfs] [95764.899493] [] btrfs_kill_super+0x1a/0x90 [btrfs] Need to see the rest of the trace this came from. -- Hendrik Friedel Auf dem Brink 12 28844 Weyhe Mobil 0178 1874363 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of

Re: btrfsck errors is it save to fix?

. -- Hendrik Friedel Auf dem Brink 12 28844 Weyhe Mobil 0178 1874363 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

btrfsck errors is it save to fix?

Hello, I have noticed that my server experiences high load average when writing to it. So I checked the file-system and found errors: ./btrfsck /dev/sdc1 Checking filesystem on /dev/sdc1 UUID: 989306aa-d291-4752-8477-0baf94f8c42f checking extents checking free space cache checking fs roots roo

Re: Mount multiple-device-filesystem by UUID

Thanks for your replies. I will try. Greetings, Hendrik -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Mount multiple-device-filesystem by UUID

Hello, As stated in the wiki, multiple-device filesystems (e.g. raid 1) will only mount after a btfs device scan, or if all devices are passed with the mount options. I remember, that for Ubuntu 12.04 I changed the initrd. But after a re-install, I have to do this again, and I don't remember

Mount multiple-device-filesystem by UUID

Hello, As stated in the -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

raid0, raid1, raid5, what to choose?

Hello, I'd appreciate your recommendation on this: I have three hdd with 3TB each. I intend to use them as raid5 eventually. currently I use them like this: # mount|grep sd /dev/sda1 on /mnt/Datenplatte type ext4 /dev/sdb1 on /mnt/BTRFS/Video type btrfs /dev/sdb1 on /mnt/BTRFS/rsnapshot type bt

Needed change in Wiki

Hello, I don't see how to change the wiki, but it needs an update: apt-get build-dep btrfs-tools -or- apt-get install uuid-dev libattr1-dev zlib1g-dev libacl1-dev e2fslibs-dev here libblkid-dev is missing -at least for the latest git version of the btrfs-progs. Greetings, Hendrik -- To unsub

Re: experimental raid5/6 code in git

Hi Chris, I've been keen for raid5/6 in btrfs since I heard of it. I cannot give you any feedback, but I'd like to take the opportunity to thank you -and all contributors (thinking of David for the raid) for your work. Regards, Hendrik -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubsc

Re: segmentation-fault in btrfsck (git-version)

Hello, I re-send this message, hoping that someone can give me a hint? Regards, Hendrik Am 18.12.2012 23:17, schrieb Hendrik Friedel: Hi Mitch, hi all, thanks for your hint. I used btrfs-debug-tree now. With -e, the output is empty. But without -e I do get a bit output file. When I search

  1   2   >