On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 04:15:26AM +, Duncan wrote:
>> Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa posted on Mon, 11 Aug 2014 16:33:36 -0500 as
>> excerpted:
>>
>> > As I hate when a thread is left "hanging", you deserve to know what
>> > happened in the
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 04:15:26AM +, Duncan wrote:
> Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa posted on Mon, 11 Aug 2014 16:33:36 -0500 as
> excerpted:
>
> > As I hate when a thread is left "hanging", you deserve to know what
> > happened in the end, you likely already guessed, but anyway: I nuked the
>
Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa posted on Mon, 11 Aug 2014 16:33:36 -0500 as
excerpted:
> As I hate when a thread is left "hanging", you deserve to know what
> happened in the end, you likely already guessed, but anyway: I nuked the
> filesystem, and started over.
>
> After some internal discussion
As I hate when a thread is left "hanging", you deserve to know what
happened in the end, you likely already guessed, but anyway: I nuked
the filesystem, and started over.
After some internal discussion in the company, we decided to move to
ZFS for now. However, we will keep an eye on btrfs, and w
On Aug 10, 2014, at 2:24 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> Either way, the question then comes up of what to use when you do a new
> mkfs. My personal feeling? Btrfs isn't yet fully stable, and there's a
> very real possibility that one may have to restore from backup, so one
> sh
On Sat, 09 Aug 2014 11:21:13 -0700, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> I sure hope that deadlock patch is going to be added to the 3.16.x tree,
> I'm not super stocked with being stuck at 3.14.
Let me try to re-stoke your enthusiasm a bit :)
If you are comfortable with patching your own kernel you can take
a
Timofey Titovets posted on Sun, 10 Aug 2014 11:50:39 +0300 as excerpted:
> Jose, I add my 50 cents,
> i know, what you want backup data from raid through network and what you
> have only 11 TB data from 40 TB fs As i now, you can safety resize btrfs
> fs, without btrfs fi resize, something like th
Jose, I add my 50 cents,
i know, what you want backup data from raid through network and what
you have only 11 TB data from 40 TB fs
As i now, you can safety resize btrfs fs, without btrfs fi resize,
something like that:
$ btrfs fi df /
Data, single: total=81.00GiB, used=60.33GiB
System, DUP: total
Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa posted on Sat, 09 Aug 2014 22:58:37 -0500 as
excerpted:
> Do you think I will have better luck with 3.16? or maybe it is that this
> filesystem has so many errors (remember the btrfs check output) that it
> will take a really long time to mount because it is trying to
Mitch Harder posted on Sat, 09 Aug 2014 23:57:19 -0500 as excerpted:
> On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 11:21 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> So by the time of actual .0 release, [the kernel] really is quite
>> stable, and no longer development kernel.
>>
> I can't say I've observed that to b
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 11:21 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> But from rc5 on thru rc7 or 8 and
> release, unless you're one of the ones still waiting on a bug found
> earlier to be fixed, it's generally quite stable and boring.
>
> So by the time of actual .0 release, it really is
Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa posted on Sat, 09 Aug 2014 13:38:46 -0500 as
excerpted:
> On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa posted on Sat, 09 Aug 2014 11:06:37 -0500
>> as excerpted:
>>
>>> 3.16 (still in development)
>>
>> ??
>>
>
Marc MERLIN posted on Sat, 09 Aug 2014 11:21:13 -0700 as excerpted:
> You could argue that since 3.16.0 does not have the recently found
> deadlock patch that's been plaging 15 and 16 (14 not as much for me),
> it's not usable for some (it ran about 1 day on my laptop before
> deadlocking, and may
And it is still going although the hung task message stopped long
ago (behavior similar to 3.15), it hasn't finished mounting, mount is
still taking 100% CPU, *and* I can't see any disk activity at all.
Last hung task message:
[21131.749759] INFO: task btrfs-transacti:7353 blocked for more tha
3.14.16 test is on its way, it already started with this:
[19732.769100] BTRFS: device fsid 7356e329-62ba-49fb-83cc-f6b91ac3b581
devid 1 transid 111580 /dev/sdb1
[19732.769429] BTRFS info (device sdb1): enabling auto recovery
[19732.769433] BTRFS info (device sdb1): force clearing of disk cache
[2
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa posted on Sat, 09 Aug 2014 11:06:37 -0500 as
> excerpted:
>
>> 3.16 (still in development)
>
> ??
>
> 3.16 has been out for nearly a week now and we're nearing half-way thru
> the 3.17 commit-windo
On Sat, Aug 09, 2014 at 05:01:24PM +, Duncan wrote:
> Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa posted on Sat, 09 Aug 2014 11:06:37 -0500 as
> excerpted:
>
> > 3.16 (still in development)
>
> ??
>
> 3.16 has been out for nearly a week now and we're nearing half-way thru
> the 3.17 commit-window. Based
Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa posted on Sat, 09 Aug 2014 11:06:37 -0500 as
excerpted:
> 3.16 (still in development)
??
3.16 has been out for nearly a week now and we're nearing half-way thru
the 3.17 commit-window. Based on the kernel git I have here, Linus'
commit officially changing the mak
Re-sending to list.
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa
wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Andy Smith wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 09, 2014 at 01:38:34PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
>>> On Fri, 8 Aug 2014 16:35:29 Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa wrote:
>>> > T
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Andy Smith wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sat, Aug 09, 2014 at 01:38:34PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
>> On Fri, 8 Aug 2014 16:35:29 Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa wrote:
>> > Then, after reading here and there, decided to try to use a newer
>> > kernel, tried 3.15.8. Well,
Hello,
On Sat, Aug 09, 2014 at 01:38:34PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Aug 2014 16:35:29 Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa wrote:
> > Then, after reading here and there, decided to try to use a newer
> > kernel, tried 3.15.8. Well, it is still mounting after ~16 hours, and
> > I got messag
On Fri, 8 Aug 2014 16:35:29 Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa wrote:
> uname -a
> Linux server1 3.15.8-031508-generic #201407311933 SMP Thu Jul 31
> 23:34:33 UTC 2014 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
>
> The complete story:
>
> The filesystem was created on Ubuntu 12.04, running kernel 3.11.
> mount op
Greetings,
I have been having some issues with btrfs for the past couple of days.
Some info (this has changed as I tried multiple things):
btrfs fi show
Btrfs v3.12
uname -a
Linux server1 3.15.8-031508-generic #201407311933 SMP Thu Jul 31
23:34:33 UTC 2014 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
The co
23 matches
Mail list logo
