Hi,
the ceph cluster is running under heavy load for the last 13 hours
without a problem, dmesg is empty and the performance is good.
-martin
Am 23.05.2012 21:12, schrieb Martin Mailand:
this patch is running for 3 hours without a Bug and without the Warning.
I will let it run overnight and
Same thing here.
I've tried really hard, but even after 12 hours I wasn't able to get a
single warning from btrfs.
I think you cracked it!
Thanks,
Christian
2012/5/24 Martin Mailand mar...@tuxadero.com:
Hi,
the ceph cluster is running under heavy load for the last 13 hours without a
2012/5/22 Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com:
Yeah you would also need to change orphan_meta_reserved. I fixed this by just
taking the BTRFS_I(inode)-lock when messing with these since we don't want to
take up all that space in the inode just for a marker. I ran this patch for 3
hours with no
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 02:34:43PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
2012/5/22 Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com:
Yeah you would also need to change orphan_meta_reserved. I fixed this by
just
taking the BTRFS_I(inode)-lock when messing with these since we don't want
to
take up all that
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 02:34:43PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
2012/5/22 Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com:
Yeah you would also need to change orphan_meta_reserved. I fixed this by
just
taking the BTRFS_I(inode)-lock when messing with these since we don't want
to
take up all that
Hi Josef,
this patch is running for 3 hours without a Bug and without the Warning.
I will let it run overnight and report tomorrow.
It looks very good ;-)
-martin
Am 23.05.2012 17:02, schrieb Josef Bacik:
Ok give this a shot, it should do it. Thanks,
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send
2012/5/21 Miao Xie mi...@cn.fujitsu.com:
Hi Josef,
On fri, 18 May 2012 15:01:05 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h b/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h
index 9b9b15f..492c74f 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h
+++ b/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h
@@ -57,9 +57,6 @@ struct
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 12:29:59PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
2012/5/21 Miao Xie mi...@cn.fujitsu.com:
Hi Josef,
On fri, 18 May 2012 15:01:05 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h b/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h
index 9b9b15f..492c74f 100644
---
Hi Josef,
On fri, 18 May 2012 15:01:05 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h b/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h
index 9b9b15f..492c74f 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h
+++ b/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h
@@ -57,9 +57,6 @@ struct btrfs_inode {
/* used to order data wrt
Hi Josef,
there was one line before the bug.
[ 995.725105] couldn't find orphan item for 524
Am 18.05.2012 16:48, schrieb Josef Bacik:
Ok hopefully this will print something out that makes sense. Thanks,
-martin
[ 241.754693] Btrfs loaded
[ 241.755148] device fsid
Hi Josef,
now I get
[ 2081.142669] couldn't find orphan item for 2039, nlink 1, root 269,
root being deleted no
-martin
Am 18.05.2012 21:01, schrieb Josef Bacik:
*sigh* ok try this, hopefully it will point me in the right direction. Thanks,
[ 126.389847] Btrfs loaded
[ 126.390284]
Hi Josef,
somehow I still get the kernel Bug messages, I used your patch from the
16th against rc7.
-martin
Am 16.05.2012 21:20, schrieb Josef Bacik:
Hrm ok so I finally got some time to try and debug it and let the test run a
good long while (5 hours almost) and I couldn't hit either the
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:29:32PM +0200, Martin Mailand wrote:
Hi Josef,
somehow I still get the kernel Bug messages, I used your patch from
the 16th against rc7.
Was there anything above those messages? There should have been a WARN_ON() or
something. If not thats fine, I just need to
Hi Josef,
no there was nothing above. Here the is another dmesg output.
Was there anything above those messages? There should have been a WARN_ON() or
something. If not thats fine, I just need to know one way or the other so I can
figure out what to do next. Thanks,
Josef
-martin
[
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 05:12:55PM +0200, Martin Mailand wrote:
Hi Josef,
no there was nothing above. Here the is another dmesg output.
Hrm ok give this a try and hopefully this is it, still couldn't reproduce.
Thanks,
Josef
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h b/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h
index
2012/5/17 Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com:
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 05:12:55PM +0200, Martin Mailand wrote:
Hi Josef,
no there was nothing above. Here the is another dmesg output.
Hrm ok give this a try and hopefully this is it, still couldn't reproduce.
Thanks,
Josef
Well, I hate to say it,
Hi Josef,
I hit exact the same bug as Christian with your last patch.
-martin
--
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
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:20:48AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 04:19:37PM +0200, Martin Mailand wrote:
Hi Josef,
Am 11.05.2012 21:16, schrieb Josef Bacik:
Heh duh, sorry, try this one instead. Thanks,
With this patch I got this Bug:
Yeah Christian reported
Hi Josef,
Am 11.05.2012 21:16, schrieb Josef Bacik:
Heh duh, sorry, try this one instead. Thanks,
With this patch I got this Bug:
[ 8233.828722] [ cut here ]
[ 8233.828737] kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/inode.c:2217!
[ 8233.828746] invalid opcode: [#1] SMP
[
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 04:35:23PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 01:02:08PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
Am 24. April 2012 18:26 schrieb Sage Weil s...@newdream.net:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:09:34PM +0200, Christian Brunner
2012/5/10 Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 01:02:08PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
Am 24. April 2012 18:26 schrieb Sage Weil s...@newdream.net:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:09:34PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
After running
Hi Josef,
Am 11.05.2012 15:31, schrieb Josef Bacik:
That previous patch was against btrfs-next, this patch is against 3.4-rc6 if you
are on mainline. Thanks,
I tried your patch against mainline, after a few minutes I hit this bug.
[ 1078.523655] [ cut here ]
[
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 08:33:34PM +0200, Martin Mailand wrote:
Hi Josef,
Am 11.05.2012 15:31, schrieb Josef Bacik:
That previous patch was against btrfs-next, this patch is against 3.4-rc6 if
you
are on mainline. Thanks,
I tried your patch against mainline, after a few minutes I hit
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 01:02:08PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
Am 24. April 2012 18:26 schrieb Sage Weil s...@newdream.net:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:09:34PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
After running ceph on XFS for some time, I decided to
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 01:02:08PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
Am 24. April 2012 18:26 schrieb Sage Weil s...@newdream.net:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:09:34PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
After running ceph on XFS for some time, I decided to
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 10:24:16PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
2012/5/3 Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com:
On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 09:38:27AM -0700, Josh Durgin wrote:
On Thu, 3 May 2012 11:20:53 -0400, Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 08:17:43AM -0700, Josh
2012/5/3 Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com:
On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 09:38:27AM -0700, Josh Durgin wrote:
On Thu, 3 May 2012 11:20:53 -0400, Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 08:17:43AM -0700, Josh Durgin wrote:
Yeah all that was in the right place, I rebooted and I
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 01:02:08PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
Am 24. April 2012 18:26 schrieb Sage Weil s...@newdream.net:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:09:34PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
After running ceph on XFS for some time, I decided to
On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 08:17:43AM -0700, Josh Durgin wrote:
On Thu, 3 May 2012 10:13:55 -0400, Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 01:02:08PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
Am 24. April 2012 18:26 schrieb Sage Weil s...@newdream.net:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012, Josef
On Thu, 3 May 2012 11:20:53 -0400, Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 08:17:43AM -0700, Josh Durgin wrote:
On Thu, 3 May 2012 10:13:55 -0400, Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 01:02:08PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
Am 24. April 2012
On Thu, 3 May 2012 10:13:55 -0400, Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 01:02:08PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
Am 24. April 2012 18:26 schrieb Sage Weil s...@newdream.net:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:09:34PM +0200, Christian
On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 09:38:27AM -0700, Josh Durgin wrote:
On Thu, 3 May 2012 11:20:53 -0400, Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 08:17:43AM -0700, Josh Durgin wrote:
On Thu, 3 May 2012 10:13:55 -0400, Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at
2012/4/29 tsuna tsuna...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Christian Brunner
christ...@brunner-muc.de wrote:
After running ceph on XFS for some time, I decided to try btrfs again.
Performance with the current for-linux-min branch and big metadata
is much better.
I've heard that
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Christian Brunner
christ...@brunner-muc.de wrote:
After running ceph on XFS for some time, I decided to try btrfs again.
Performance with the current for-linux-min branch and big metadata
is much better.
I've heard that although performance from btrfs is better
Am 24. April 2012 18:26 schrieb Sage Weil s...@newdream.net:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:09:34PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
After running ceph on XFS for some time, I decided to try btrfs again.
Performance with the current for-linux-min branch and
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:09:34PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
After running ceph on XFS for some time, I decided to try btrfs again.
Performance with the current for-linux-min branch and big metadata
is much better. The only problem (?) I'm still seeing is a warning
that seems to occur
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:09:34PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
After running ceph on XFS for some time, I decided to try btrfs again.
Performance with the current for-linux-min branch and big metadata
is much better. The only problem (?) I'm still
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 09:26:15AM -0700, Sage Weil wrote:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:09:34PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
After running ceph on XFS for some time, I decided to try btrfs again.
Performance with the current for-linux-min branch
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 01:33:44PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 09:26:15AM -0700, Sage Weil wrote:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:09:34PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
After running ceph on XFS for some time, I decided to try
I decided to run the test over the weekend. The good news is, that the
system is still running without performance degradation. But in the
meantime I've got over 5000 WARNINGs of this kind:
[330700.043557] btrfs: block rsv returned -28
[330700.043559] [ cut here ]
After running ceph on XFS for some time, I decided to try btrfs again.
Performance with the current for-linux-min branch and big metadata
is much better. The only problem (?) I'm still seeing is a warning
that seems to occur from time to time:
[87703.784552] [ cut here ]
41 matches
Mail list logo
