Hi,
after my machine hung during "btrfs filesystem balance /mnt", I am now
unable to mount the filesystem due to a segmentation fault. Is there
any hope of gaining access to the filesystem? What more should I send
to help diagnose the bug? (I am aware that an fs can get corrupted,
but this should
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Hubert Kario wrote:
> On Wednesday 17 March 2010 09:48:18 Heinz-Josef Claes wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> just want to add one correction to your thoughts:
>>
>> Storage is not cheap if you think about enterprise storage on a SAN,
>> replicated to another data centre. Using
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 5:19 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 11:51:35AM +0100, Leszek Ciesielski wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 1:45 AM, Chris Mason wrote:
>> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 10:34:22AM +0100, Leszek Ciesielski wrote:
>> >> (My pr
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 1:45 AM, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 10:34:22AM +0100, Leszek Ciesielski wrote:
>> (My previous post seems to have been discarded because of the
>> attachment size, I'm resending it without the dmesg output - which can
>> be f
printk(KERN_INFO "btrfs ignoring csum mismatch");
+// goto zeroit;
kunmap_atomic(kaddr, KM_USER0);
good:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Leszek Ciesielski wrote:
> (My previous post seems to have been discarded because of the
> attachment size,
(My previous post seems to have been discarded because of the
attachment size, I'm resending it without the dmesg output - which can
be found @ http://pastebin.com/T0J3z59j )
Hi,
yesterday I updated my kernel (clean clone from
mason/btrfs-unstable.gi), pulling in the single latest change I have
b
The patch is here: http://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/81547/ , it's for kernel.
But I have just seen weird behaviour with my btrfs, I'm not sure
whether it's my patch or the new changes I have pulled from git - I'd
recommend you wait with trying out this patch until someone diagnoses
what failed wi
The 'used' output of df on a btrfs system does not take metadata into
account. So the disk is really full. This is what my yesterdays path
is intended to fix - can you try it out?
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Boyd Waters wrote:
> I believe there is a kerneloops associated with this problem:
>
ces,
dev_list) {
+ buf->f_bfree -= (device->bytes_used >> bits);
+ }
+ mutex_unlock(&root->fs_info->fs_devices->device_list_mutex);
buf->f_bavail = buf->f_bfree;
buf->f_bsize = dentry->d_sb->s_blocksize;
buf->f_type = B
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 5:46 PM, 0bo0 <0.bugs.onl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> hi
>
> On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 12:02 AM, Goffredo Baroncelli
> wrote:
>> On Sunday 24 January 2010, 0bo0 wrote:
>>> after a simple reboot,
>> ^^
>> Have you do
>>
>> # btrfsctl -a
>>
>> before mounting th
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Thomas Kupper wrote:
>
> On 22 Jan 2010, at 10:17, Leszek Ciesielski wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Thomas Kupper wrote:
>>>
>>> On 22 Jan 2010, at 09:59, Leszek Ciesielski wrote:
>>>
>>>>
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Thomas Kupper wrote:
>
> On 22 Jan 2010, at 09:59, Leszek Ciesielski wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:55 AM, Thomas Kupper wrote:
>>> Using btrfs as the root filesystem on my Ubuntu 9.10 powered laptop I
>>> discoverd tha
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:55 AM, Thomas Kupper wrote:
> Using btrfs as the root filesystem on my Ubuntu 9.10 powered laptop I
> discoverd that mount is not showing the actual passed rootflags= but shows
> what is put in the /etc/fstab.
>
> First of all, I'm not sure if that is an intended behav
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 6:56 AM, TARUISI Hiroaki
wrote:
> Btrfs collects block device information when mount or mkfs
> (device_list_add in volumes.c), and know devid-device relation
> by collected information. So, if we make filesystem on plain
> file, btrfs cannot know devid-device relation. As a
Hi,
after adding a second device to a btrfs filesystem (kernel 2.6.31)
used for root fs, I am getting a "No filesystem could mount root"
message upon reboot. Is the caveat
"btrfsctl -a is used to scan all of the block devices under /dev and
probe for Btrfs volumes. This is required after loading
Hi,
the results of running 'df' against a btrfs volume are somewhat
unintuitive from a user point of view. On a single drive btrfs volume,
created with 'mkfs.btrfs -m raid1 -d raid1 /dev/sda6', I am getting
the following result:
/dev/sda6 1.4T 594G 804G 43% /mnt
while 'btrfs-show'
16 matches
Mail list logo
