On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 7:39 AM, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Sunday 14 February 2010, Thomas Kupper wrote:
>> Hi Goffredo,
>>
>> Great work! It is indeed much easier to work with one tool instead with the
> many of them!
>>
>> > Usage:
>> > btrfs snapshot|-s [/]
>> >
I think he need some command hierarchy here.
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Goffredo Baroncelli
wrote:
> OPTIONS
> snapshot|-s [/]
> Create a writeble snapshot of the subvolume with the
> name in the directory. If is not a sub‐
> volume, b
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Chris Mason wrote:
> I do like the subcommand method, more details below.
>
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 03:35:26PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
>> I think he need some command hierarchy here.
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Go
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Goffredo Baroncelli
wrote:
> On Thursday 18 February 2010, Chris Mason wrote:
>> I do like the subcommand method, more details below.
>>
>
> I try to summarise your suggestions. But there are some cases not to clear for
> me.
> I grouped the commands in three cate
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 12:46:56PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Goffredo Baroncelli
>> wrote:
>> > On Thursday 18 February 2010, Chris Mason wrote:
>> >> I do like the s
Hi,
Kernel 2.6.33-0.46.rc8.git1.fc13.x86_64
I think I ran into the issue that triggers when you write the a btrfs
filesystem and then umount it and it takes a long time while writing
out the data. It ends up writing at about 1MiB/second according to
dstat. My understanding this issue is already
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Mr. Tux wrote:
>
>
> Hi listIs there a btrfs testing suite the btrfs developers use to check the
> codebase? I did some research and found a projectcalled xfstests-dev. It
> supports ext4 as well - are there any patches to get btrfs support with
> xfstests?
Th
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Goffredo Baroncelli
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> on the basis of the suggestion received, I update my btrfs tool.
>
> The main changes are:
> - removed the short form of the command (like '-C')
> - deployed the "multi level" command (i.e.: btrfs snapshot create)
> - split
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 7:11 PM, James Cloos wrote:
> Sometime between rc6 and rc7 all filesystem I/O started using 100% CPU,
> usually on the order of 60% sys, 40% user.
>
> I've tried this with each of ext4, jfs and btrfs filesystems. All show
> the same issue.
>
Are you sure you're not runnin
If I had more than one btrfs volume, how would I know which volume
caused these errors? Sure I can look at df and btrfs-show, but
shouldn't these messages say definitively?
Feb 19 04:31:26 dt01 kernel: no space left, need 4096, 274432 delalloc
bytes, 8360148992 bytes_used, 4096 bytes_reserved, 0
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 8:40 AM, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
> filesystem resize [+/-][gkm]|max
-filesystem resize [+/-][gkm]|max
+filesystem resize [+/-][gkm]|max
This command works on devices, not paths.
> Resize a filesystem identified by . The parame‐
-Resize a files
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 07:47:40PM +0100, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
>> On Monday 22 February 2010, Mike Fedyk wrote:
>> > On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 8:40 AM, Goffredo Baroncelli
>> wrote:
>> > >
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Leszek Ciesielski wrote:
> I have changed the btrfs code to ignore checksum failures and now I
> can read files correctly from the filesystem. Also, moving them onto
> another volume and then back into btrfs fixes the checksums and no
> more errors are reported fo
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Bill Pemberton
wrote:
>>
>> Does the array have any kind of writeback cache?
>>
>
> Yes, the array has a writeback cache.
>
>>
>> Are all of the filesystems spread across all of the drives? Or do some
>> filesystems use some drives only?
>>
>
> In all cases the a
Hi,
I get an oops with 2.6.33-0.46.rc8.git1.fc13.x86_64 while trying to
mount a degraded raid1 btrfs filesystem.
Here are the steps I performed to get to this stage.
- Install fedora12 btrfs / on sda2
- mkfs.btrfs -m raid1 -d raid1 /dev/sda7
- cp -a from sda2 to sda7
- reboot into sda7 as /
- bt
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Bart Noordervliet wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 21:31, Josef Bacik wrote:
>>> Since I have three devices in a RAID1 pool, can it survive 2 drive failures?
>>
>> Yes, tho you won't be able to remove more than 1 at a time (since it wants
>> you
>> to keep at least
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Bruce Guenter wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 12:39:38PM -0500, Chris Ball wrote:
>> I think this is fixed in 2.6.33, as a result of the patch below.
>> Let us know if you see a segfault on 2.6.33, or after applying this
>> patch to your current kernel.
>
> This p
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Bruce Guenter wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 12:39:38PM -0500, Chris Ball wrote:
>>> I think this is fixed in 2.6.33, as a result of the patch below.
>>> Let us know if you see a s
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Gordan Bobic wrote:
> I'm looking to try BTRFS on a SSD, and I would like to know what SSD
> optimizations it applies. Is there a comprehensive list of what ssd mount
> option does? How are the blocks and metadata arranged? Are there options
> available comparable
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 6:38 PM, Brian Callender wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I estimate it has been 10 hours since I issued the command "btrfsctl
> -r -4g /home" to attempt to free some space for a new partition. It is
> still running. How long should this take? I am very concerned about
> the integr
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Phillip Michael wrote:
> I have a btrfs filesystem with three subvolumes. One of them (named
> arch64) has 64 bit linux, one (arch32) has 32 bit linux, and the
> third (files) has various files. After an unsuccessful tuxonice
> resume, the arch64 subvolume will no
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 10:49:57AM -0700, Mike Fedyk wrote:
>> I still get this oops with the latest btrfs kernel code from git (as
>> of 2010-03-21) compiled against 2.6.32.9-70.fc12.x86_64
>>
>
> Will you try t
---
fs/btrfs/version.h |6 +++---
fs/btrfs/version.sh | 16
2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/version.h b/fs/btrfs/version.h
index 9bf3946..12f7e5c 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/version.h
+++ b/fs/btrfs/version.h
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-#ifndef __
The btrfs git repo doesn't have all of the tags from the base 2.6.32 kernel
it's currently based upon and the btrfs module is regularly compiled
against other kernels so this changes the version to be based upon the date
and hash of the latest commit instead which is more relevant to most people
te
Please ignore this patch, I will resend a fixed one.
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 9:12 AM, Mike Fedyk wrote:
>
> ---
>
> fs/btrfs/version.h | 6 +++---
> fs/btrfs/version.sh | 16
> 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a
The btrfs git repo doesn't have all of the tags from the base 2.6.32 kernel
it's currently based upon and the btrfs module is regularly compiled
against other kernels so this changes the version to be based upon the date
and hash of the latest commit instead which is more relevant to most people
te
---
fs/btrfs/version.sh | 16
1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/version.sh b/fs/btrfs/version.sh
index a4576f2..d87daf4 100755
--- a/fs/btrfs/version.sh
+++ b/fs/btrfs/version.sh
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-#!/bin/bash
+#!/bin/sh
#
# determine-vers
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Martin Bueger
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> when I try to resize the FS with btrfsctl -r it works using + or -, hence,
> extending or shrinking the FS but when I want to set it to a certain size I
> always hit the follwing bug:
>
> [ cut here ]
>
> in
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Andreas Philipp
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The help message of the btrfsctl command does not tell anything about
> the deletion of a subvolume. See patch below.
>
> Kind regards,
> Andreas
>
> diff --git a/btrfsctl.c b/btrfsctl.c
> index be6bf25..3ed6f2d 100644
> --- a/btrf
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 8:38 AM, J G wrote:
>
>
> --- On Sun, 5/16/10, Donald Gordon wrote:
>
>> From: Donald Gordon
>> Subject: Adding mirroring to an existing filesystem
>> To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
>> Date: Sunday, May 16, 2010, 4:39 AM
>> Hi
>>
>> Is there some way I can add an extra d
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 12:18 AM, Miao Xie wrote:
> From: Liu Bo
>
> If add_to_page_cache_lru() returns -EEXIST, it indicates the page
> that belongs to this page_index has been added and this readahead
> action can go on to next page.
>
> If add_to_page_cache_lru() returns -ENOMEM, it should bre
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 12:22 AM, Miao Xie wrote:
> the ctime of file has not been updated when I create a link for it.
>
> Steps to reproduce:
> # touch file1
> # stat -c %Z file1
> 1273592239
> # link flink1 file1
> # stat -c %Z file1
> 1273592239 <-- have not been updated
>
>
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> Btrfs cannot handle having logically non-contiguous requests submitted. For
> example if you have
>
> Logical: [0-4095][HOLE][8192-12287]
> Physical: [0-4095] [4096-8191]
>
> Normally the DIO code would put these into the same BIO's. T
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
wrote:
> Hi all
>
> It's about a year now since I saw the first posts about RAID[56] in Btrfs.
> Has this gotten any further?
>
There are patches in development. Nothing ready to test yet.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "un
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 2:08 PM, K. Richard Pixley wrote:
> I've just started to work with btrfs so I started with a benchmark. On four
> identical servers, (2 dual core cpus, single local disk), I built
> filesystems - ext3, ext4, nilfs2, and btrfs. I checked out a sizable code
> tree and timed
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 2:45 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> "old_inode" cannot be null here, because we dereference it
> unconditionally throughout the function.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
> index fa6ccc1..0bc29be 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/inod
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Paul Millar wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> On Thursday 27 May 2010 18:00:44 Chris Mason wrote:
>> I'd suggest that you look at T10 DIF and DIX, which are targeted at
>> exactly this kind of thing. We're looking at integrating dif/dix into
>> btrfs at some point.
>
> I've
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Bruce Guenter wrote:
> On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 01:02:07PM +0800, Yan, Zheng wrote:
>> Dropping a tree can be lengthy. It's not good to let sync wait for hours.
>> For most linux FS, 'sync' just force an transaction/journal commit. I don't
>> think they wait for l
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 8:43 PM, Daniel Taylor wrote:
> Just an FYI reminder. The original test (2K files) is utterly
> pathological for disk drives with 4K physical sectors, such as
> those now shipping from WD, Seagate, and others. Some of the
> SSDs have larger (16K0 or smaller blocks (2K).
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 2:28 AM, Surbhi Palande
wrote:
> https://launchpad.net/bugs/601877
>
> btrfs_search_slot() returns
> * -1 when some error is encountered
> * +1 when the item to be searched is not found
> * 0 when the item is found successfully.
>
Any chance you can add some defines for th
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 8:59 AM, K. Richard Pixley wrote:
> On 8/29/10 17:14 , Josef Bacik wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 09:34:29PM +0200, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
>>>
>>> Christoph Hellwig wrote:
There are a lot of variables when using qemu.
The most important one are
On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 6:56 AM, Jaswinder Singh Rajput
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 04:32:20PM +0530, Jaswinder Singh Rajput wrote:
>>>
>>> if (ret) is useless as it will be never NULL as in previous statement
>>> we are s
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Goffredo Baroncelli
wrote:
> +int get_label(char *btrfs_dev)
> +{
> +
> + int ret;
> + ret = check_mounted(btrfs_dev);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + {
> + fprintf(stderr, "FATAL: error checking %s mount status\n",
> btrfs_dev);
> +
[ sorry for breaking the thread, I'm replying from the archives, I was
unsubbed after a mail server issue and didn't notice till now... ]
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 07:44:35PM +0200, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
> > balance-> info on balancing
Hugo Mills wrote:
> F
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:41 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 05:47:14PM +1100, Chris Samuel wrote:
>> On 11/11/10 23:52, Josef Bacik wrote:
>>
>> > This feature incurs a performance penalty in larger filesystems, it is
>> > recommended for use with filesystems of 1 GiB or smaller
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 6:28 AM, Marek Otahal wrote:
> On Friday 12 of November 2010 18:44:12 you wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:41 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> > On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 05:47:14PM +1100, Chris Samuel wrote:
>> >> On 11/11/10 23:52, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> >> > This feature incu
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 7:12 AM, Bart Noordervliet
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 15:31, Hugo Mills wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 10:19:45PM -0500, Chris Ball wrote:
>>> == Changing RAID levels ==
>>>
>>> We need ioctls to change between different raid levels. Some of these
>>> are quite e
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 12:02 AM, Li Zefan wrote:
> (Cc: Sage Weil for changes in async snapshots)
>
> This patchset adds readonly-snapshots support. You can create a
> readonly snapshot, and you can also set a snapshot readonly/writable
> on the fly.
>
> A few readonly checks are added in setatt
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 12:41 PM, David Arendt wrote:
> On 11/29/10 21:02, Mike Fedyk wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 12:02 AM, Li Zefan wrote:
>>>
>>> (Cc: Sage Weil for changes in async snapshots)
>>>
>>> This patchset adds readon
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 05:52:47PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
>> Btrfs has a number of BUG_ON()s, which may lead btrfs to unpleasant panic.
>> Meanwhile, they are very ugly and should be handled more propriately.
>>
>> There are mainly two ways to
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Andrey Kuzmin
wrote:
> This may sound excessive as any new concept introduction that late in
> development, but readonly/writable snapshots could be further
> differentiated by naming the latter clones. This way end-user would
> naturally perceive snapsot as read-o
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Freddie Cash wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Hugo Mills wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 12:24:28PM -0800, Freddie Cash wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Hugo Mills wrote:
>>> >> The idea is you are only charged for what blocks
>>> >> you have
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 8:28 PM, Yan, Zheng wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 11:42 AM, liubo wrote:
>> On 12/01/2010 06:20 PM, liubo wrote:
>>> When the filesystem is readonly, avoid transaction stuff by checking
>>> MS_RDONLY at
>>> start transaction time.
>>>
>>
>> This patch may lead btrfs pani
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Helmut Hullen wrote:
> Btrfs Btrfs v0.19
>
"btrfs" in the kernel has been version 0.19 for a *long* time. The
version number there may never change. How do you encode a feature
mask in a version number? Some features may be in one tree but not
upstreamed all to
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 09:21:36AM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Various people have complained about how BTRFS deals with subvolumes
>> recently,
>> specifically the fact that they all have the same inode number, and there's
>> no
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Chris Mason wrote:
> Excerpts from Tsutomu Itoh's message of 2010-12-07 02:59:52 -0500:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think that the disk allocation size of each file becomes a monotone
>> increase
>> when the file is made.
>> But, it sometimes return to 0. Is it correct?
>
> W
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:29 AM, Chris Mason wrote:
> Excerpts from Mike Fedyk's message of 2010-12-07 14:16:55 -0500:
>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Chris Mason wrote:
>> > Excerpts from Tsutomu Itoh's message of 2010-12-07 02:59:52 -0500:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> I think that the disk allocat
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
> Excerpts from Mike Fedyk's message of 2010-12-07 15:07:08 -0500:
>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:29 AM, Chris Mason wrote:
>> > Excerpts from Mike Fedyk's message of 2010-12-07 14:16:55 -0500:
>> >> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Chris Mason
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
> Excerpts from Andi Kleen's message of 2010-12-09 18:16:16 -0500:
>> > 512MB.
>> >
>> > 'free' reports 75MB, 419MB free.
>> >
>> > I originally noticed the problem on really real hardware (thinkpad
>> > T61p), however.
>>
>> If you can easily rep
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Chris Ball wrote:
> > echo x1 > /mnt/x/d/foo.txt || exit 2
> > btrfsctl -s /mnt/x/snap /mnt/x/d
>
> You're just missing a sync/fsync() between these two lines.
>
> We argued on IRC a while ago about whether this is a sensible default;
> cmason wants the no-sync
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 7:19 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 08:50:48PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Chris Ball wrote:
>> > > echo x1 > /mnt/x/d/foo.txt || exit 2
>> > > btrfsctl -s /mnt/x/snap /mnt/x/d
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 8:22 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 08:18:01AM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 7:19 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 08:50:48PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 08:27:00AM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 8:22 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 08:18:01AM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Goffredo Baroncelli
wrote:
> Usage:
> btrfs delete|-D
> Delete the subvolume .
> btrfs defrag|-d | [|...]
> Defragment a file or a directory.
I think the short options should be removed or else you'll still have
the ea
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Alex Elsayed wrote:
> I'm getting a rather nasty BUG when I try to mount this filesystem,
> _including_ when I specify -o ro. I'm unsure what caused it, but the problem
> manifested after my computer hardlocked while reading my RSS feeds, complete
> with flashing l
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 3:25 AM, Sander wrote:
> Mike Fedyk wrote (ao):
>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> > Creating a file is a metadata operation, and _any_ metadata operation has
>> > to be
>> > committed to disk when the transa
66 matches
Mail list logo
