Danny Piccirillo posted on Wed, 28 Mar 2012 06:15:41 + as excerpted:
> Chris Mason oracle.com> writes:
>>
>> People have already started picking up #4, fujitsu had some patches in
>> this direction that we'll keep developing with.
>>
>> I stepped back to add some directory metadata fixups a
Chris Mason oracle.com> writes:
>
> People have already started picking up #4, fujitsu had some patches in
> this direction that we'll keep developing with.
>
> I stepped back to add some directory metadata fixups as well to the
> basic fsck tool. I had thought I could easily do it all from the
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 03:07:16PM +, David Summers wrote:
> On 18/08/11 21:50, Chris Mason wrote:
> >Excerpts from Yalonda Gishtaka's message of 2011-08-17 21:09:37 -0400:
> >>Chris Mason oracle.com> writes:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>Aside from making sure the kernel code is stable, btrfsck is all I'm
On 18/08/11 21:50, Chris Mason wrote:
Excerpts from Yalonda Gishtaka's message of 2011-08-17 21:09:37 -0400:
Chris Mason oracle.com> writes:
Aside from making sure the kernel code is stable, btrfsck is all I'm
working on right now. I do expect a release in the next two weeks that
can recov
Chris Mason oracle.com> writes:
>
> So over the next two weeks I'm juggling the merge window and the fsck
> release. My goal is to demo fsck at linuxcon europe. Thanks again for
> all of your patience and help with Btrfs!
>
So we have a lot of new features which is awesome but still not enou
Or, better yet, how about just releasing the source code already.
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 4:19 AM, Clemens Eisserer wrot
> Any update on the state of btrfschk?
>
> Thanks, Clemens
>
> 2011/10/31 David Summers :
>> On 05/10/11 07:16, Chris Mason wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> So over the next two weeks I'm j
Any update on the state of btrfschk?
Thanks, Clemens
2011/10/31 David Summers :
> On 05/10/11 07:16, Chris Mason wrote:
>>
>>
>> So over the next two weeks I'm juggling the merge window and the fsck
>> release. My goal is to demo fsck at linuxcon europe. Thanks again for
>> all of your patience
On 05/10/11 07:16, Chris Mason wrote:
So over the next two weeks I'm juggling the merge window and the fsck
release. My goal is to demo fsck at linuxcon europe. Thanks again for
all of your patience and help with Btrfs!
Any chance of a copy of your talk at linuxcon? ;)
David.
--
To unsubsc
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 02:51:26 AM Jeff Putney wrote:
> Should the tool, and or source not be forthcoming, then this is
> exactly what I am proposing be done.
I'd suggest that you don't wait and instead make a start on it,
if for nothing else than so when Chris's version does appear there
is a way t
>> If your driver keeps telling you that you're going to arrive in 10
>> seconds, and it takes a child to start asking questions, maybe you
>> should pay more attention and realize you just might be gettin
>> shanghaied.
>
>
> Are you serious? How much are you paying for that ride?
>
Not really, I
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 02:57:01PM +0200, Francesco Riosa wrote:
> 2011/10/12 Josef Bacik :
> > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:21:45PM +0200, Francesco Riosa wrote:
> >> 2011/10/7 Josef Bacik :
> >> > On 10/06/2011 04:56 PM, Francesco Riosa wrote:
> >> >> 2011/10/6 Andi Kleen :
> >> >>> Jeff Putney wr
2011/10/12 Josef Bacik :
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:21:45PM +0200, Francesco Riosa wrote:
>> 2011/10/7 Josef Bacik :
>> > On 10/06/2011 04:56 PM, Francesco Riosa wrote:
>> >> 2011/10/6 Andi Kleen :
>> >>> Jeff Putney writes:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Release_early,_release_oft
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:28:01PM +1100, Chris Samuel wrote:
> On Saturday 08 October 2011 01:48:08 Josef Bacik wrote:
>
> > [...] Fsck has the
> > potential to make any users problems worse, and given the
> > increasing number of people putting production systems on btrfs
> > with no backups th
On Saturday 08 October 2011 01:48:08 Josef Bacik wrote:
> [...] Fsck has the
> potential to make any users problems worse, and given the
> increasing number of people putting production systems on btrfs
> with no backups the idea of releasing a unpolished and not fully
> tested fsck into the worl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/12/2011 06:47 PM, Jeff Putney wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Martin Steigerwald
> wrote:
>> Am Mittwoch, 12. Oktober 2011 schrieb Jeff Putney:
I do not argue that having a nice fsck sooner than later is
fine, but I question
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 12. Oktober 2011 schrieb Jeff Putney:
>> > I do not argue that having a nice fsck sooner than later is fine, but
>> > I question the usefulness of repeating reminders. Chris Mason and
>> > other developers possibly working o
Am Mittwoch, 12. Oktober 2011 schrieb Jeff Putney:
> > I do not argue that having a nice fsck sooner than later is fine, but
> > I question the usefulness of repeating reminders. Chris Mason and
> > other developers possibly working on the fsck should know by now,
> > that you want it. So its unlik
> Even if its a thousand +1 following, it seems to me that its perfectly
> Chris Masons decision...
Obviously.
> Chris seems to have some ideas on when to release the fsck.
Yes, and that idea of when has been drifting in the couple week range
for about a year.
> So what do you
> think you achie
Am Freitag, 7. Oktober 2011 schrieb Gour-Gadadhara Dasa:
> On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 08:39:36 -0700
>
> Mike wrote:
> > I also don't think you are giving people enough credit. e2fsck will
> > cause corruption pretty much everytime its run on a mounted file
> > system, but a nice big nasty warning messa
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:21:45PM +0200, Francesco Riosa wrote:
> 2011/10/7 Josef Bacik :
> > On 10/06/2011 04:56 PM, Francesco Riosa wrote:
> >> 2011/10/6 Andi Kleen :
> >>> Jeff Putney writes:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Release_early,_release_often
> >>>
> >>> Well the other pri
2011/10/7 Josef Bacik :
> On 10/06/2011 04:56 PM, Francesco Riosa wrote:
>> 2011/10/6 Andi Kleen :
>>> Jeff Putney writes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Release_early,_release_often
>>>
>>> Well the other principle in free software you're forgetting
>>> is:
>>>
>>> "It will be released wh
Excerpts from Asdo's message of 2011-10-07 15:10:33 -0400:
> On 10/07/11 04:25, Chester wrote:
> > The problem with this is that people naturally look for a fsck tool
> > when something bad goes wrong. Something as important as a fsck
> > utility shouldn't be released (unofficially or officially) h
Excerpts from Jeff Putney's message of 2011-10-07 11:58:55 -0400:
>
> The 'specialness' of an fsck tool is highly suspect. Current
> development versions of all the other fsck tools are available in
> their respective repositories, and yet headlines of their eating
> babies are still pretty scarc
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 4:13 AM, Asdo wrote:
> On 10/07/11 22:19, Diego Calleja wrote:
>>
>> On Viernes, 7 de Octubre de 2011 21:10:33 Asdo escribió:
>>>
>>> failures, but you can always mount by rolling back to a previous
>>> uberblock, showing an earlier view of the filesystem, which would be
>>>
On 10/07/11 22:19, Diego Calleja wrote:
On Viernes, 7 de Octubre de 2011 21:10:33 Asdo escribió:
failures, but you can always mount by rolling back to a previous
uberblock, showing an earlier view of the filesystem, which would be
consistent.
This is already available in Btrfs, command btrfsck
> Heh, what sort of "quality" are you thinking would develop? A
> recovery tool by its nature is picking up the pieces where those
> pieces are inconsistent. The nature of those inconsistencies will
> change with every patch that's more than a cleanup.
>
Seriously? You want to delay the solving
Hallo, Asdo,
Du meintest am 07.10.11:
> What I would like to know instead, is WHY we need an btrfsck when ZFS
> does not.
I need at least some tool which can "hide" defect sectors - I just have
such a problem.
Viele Gruesse!
Helmut
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
On Viernes, 7 de Octubre de 2011 21:10:33 Asdo escribió:
> failures, but you can always mount by rolling back to a previous
> uberblock, showing an earlier view of the filesystem, which would be
> consistent.
This is already available in Btrfs, command btrfsck -s.
--
To unsubscribe from this lis
> What I would like to know instead, is WHY we need an btrfsck when ZFS does
> not. Zfs also has this kind of problems especially on power failures, but
> you can always mount by rolling back to a previous uberblock, showing an
> earlier view of the filesystem, which would be consistent.
>
> It was
On 10/07/11 04:25, Chester wrote:
The problem with this is that people naturally look for a fsck tool
when something bad goes wrong. Something as important as a fsck
utility shouldn't be released (unofficially or officially) half baked.
It can irreparably destroy a filesystem which could've other
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Jeff Putney wrote:
> You jest, but in fact that is the result you've achieved, through
> conspiring or not.
>
> Do you honestly believe that had the source been public from the
> start, that after a year there would still be no quality fsck tool?
> Contributions ar
On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 08:39:36 -0700
Mike wrote:
> I also don't think you are giving people enough credit. e2fsck will
> cause corruption pretty much everytime its run on a mounted file
> system, but a nice big nasty warning message seems to handle that
> quite well and anyone who ignores it, well
You jest, but in fact that is the result you've achieved, through
conspiring or not.
Do you honestly believe that had the source been public from the
start, that after a year there would still be no quality fsck tool?
Contributions are, de facto, blocked.
Had there not been repeated promise of an
On 10/07/2011 11:58 AM, Jeff Putney wrote:
> The rescue tool may have a lot of the logic I personally am most
> interested in reading. Thank you for that!
>
>> The problem is people won't just read it, they will use it.
>
> I've read every last line of the current btrfsck, even though it
> doesn
The rescue tool may have a lot of the logic I personally am most
interested in reading. Thank you for that!
> The problem is people won't just read it, they will use it.
I've read every last line of the current btrfsck, even though it
doesn't do anything. I am interested in the source specifica
On 11-10-06 07:50 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
That's how software goes sometimes, and I'll take the criticism because
it hasn't gone as well as it should have. But, I can't stress enough how
much I appreciate everyone's contributions and interest in btrfs.
With all due respect Chris, your actions a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 10:50:04AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> If you still need that data, clone this repo
>
> git://github.com/josefbacik/btrfs-progs.git
>
> run make, and then run
>
> ./restore /dev/whatever /some/dir
>
> and it will try and s
On 10/06/2011 04:56 PM, Francesco Riosa wrote:
> 2011/10/6 Andi Kleen :
>> Jeff Putney writes:
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Release_early,_release_often
>>
>> Well the other principle in free software you're forgetting
>> is:
>>
>> "It will be released when it's ready"
>>
>> If you don't l
On 10/07/2011 09:40 AM, Jeff Putney wrote:
>> For fsck, even the stuff I have here does have a way to go before it is
>> at the level of an e2fsck or xfs_repair. But I do want to make sure
>> that I'm surprised by any bugs before I send it out, and that's just not
>> the case today. The release h
> For fsck, even the stuff I have here does have a way to go before it is
> at the level of an e2fsck or xfs_repair. But I do want to make sure
> that I'm surprised by any bugs before I send it out, and that's just not
> the case today. The release has been delayed because I've alternated
> betwe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/06/2011 10:50 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 06, 2011 at 10:31:41AM -0500, Jeff Putney wrote:
>>> No, in this case it means we're confident it will get rolled
>>> out.
>>
>> On Aug 18th confidence was high enough to declare a possible
>> r
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 23:20:45 + (UTC)
Yalonda Gishtaka wrote:
> and tarnishing Oracle's name.
Thank you sir you just made my day.
--
With respect,
Roman
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, Oct 06, 2011 at 10:31:41AM -0500, Jeff Putney wrote:
> > No, in this case it means we're confident it will get rolled out.
>
> On Aug 18th confidence was high enough to declare a possible release
> that very day. This confidence turned into 7 weeks of silence
> followed by another 2 week
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Jeff Putney wrote:
>> No, in this case it means we're confident it will get rolled out.
>
> On Aug 18th confidence was high enough to declare a possible release
> that very day. This confidence turned into 7 weeks of silence
> followed by another 2 week estimate.
On 07/10/11 10:20, Yalonda Gishtaka wrote:
> Couldn't have put it better. It's really time for Chris Mason
> to stop disgracing the open source community and tarnishing
> Oracle's name.
Oh come on - he's working *for* Oracle to do this and we are
getting the benefits for free. We can hardly co
Jeff Putney gmail.com> writes:
> This strategy of 'Lone Wolfing it' has delayed the release by a year.
> Either you are flying solo because you think that you can make more
> meaningful progress without the involvement of the btrfs community, or
> you are willing to forfeit the contributions of th
On 10/06/2011 11:31 AM, Jeff Putney wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Release_early,_release_often
I can appreciate both Jeff's and Andi's positions on this issue. I do
wonder why the fsck isn't publicly available as it is as a non-release
version, just so people can begin getting their eyes o
2011/10/6 Andi Kleen :
> Jeff Putney writes:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Release_early,_release_often
>
> Well the other principle in free software you're forgetting
> is:
>
> "It will be released when it's ready"
>
> If you don't like Chris' ways to do releases you're free to write
> somet
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/06/2011 04:30 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Jeff Putney writes:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Release_early,_release_often
>
> Well the other principle in free software you're forgetting is:
>
> "It will be released when it's ready"
>
> If yo
Jeff Putney writes:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Release_early,_release_often
Well the other principle in free software you're forgetting
is:
"It will be released when it's ready"
If you don't like Chris' ways to do releases you're free to write
something on your own or pay someone to do s
> No, in this case it means we're confident it will get rolled out.
On Aug 18th confidence was high enough to declare a possible release
that very day. This confidence turned into 7 weeks of silence
followed by another 2 week estimate.
These confident declarations are why things like mniederle's
On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 08:59:47AM -0500, Jeff Putney wrote:
> Further adoption and more commitment from Oracle for production use is
> good news. The fact that adoption is happening without a working fsck
> seems to indicate that folks have given up waiting for it.
No, in this case it means we'r
Further adoption and more commitment from Oracle for production use is
good news. The fact that adoption is happening without a working fsck
seems to indicate that folks have given up waiting for it.
Not hearing anything about getting the source into the repositories is
terrible news by omission.
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 01:01:00PM -0500, Jeff Putney wrote:
> Isn't it about time to make some hard decisions about btrfsck? Three
> years is enough time to go without this type of functionality in a
> modern filesystem, especially given btrfs's fragility in the face of
> power failures.
So this
That 2 week time line has now reached the 9 week mark. The only
update anyone has seen was 7 weeks ago, with a 'maybe today'.
Isn't it time to get that code checked in so someone else can take
over, and not have to start from scratch? Even if there isn't any
actual working code, having any fa
+1
2011/9/27 Jeff Putney :
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
>> I had hoped to get #1 out the door before I left on vacation and I still
>>might
>> post it tonight.
>>
>> -chris
>
> I don't think this is the honest time line that people were looking
> for. Instead of playing
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
> I had hoped to get #1 out the door before I left on vacation and I still might
> post it tonight.
>
> -chris
I don't think this is the honest time line that people were looking
for. Instead of playing more guessing games, how about we just ge
Chris,
Now that you're back from vacation, I was wondering if you would be
able to provide a revised estimate on how long this will take. Also,
of the four parts, which will be necessary to correct a 'parent
transid verify failed' error?
Thank you for your time,
--Erik
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 1:
Isn't it about time to make some hard decisions about btrfsck? Three
years is enough time to go without this type of functionality in a
modern filesystem, especially given btrfs's fragility in the face of
power failures.
Given the lack of progress, and the inability to provide remotely
realistic
Am Donnerstag, 1. September 2011 schrieb Hugo Mills:
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 03:24:28PM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> > On 09/01/2011 03:20 PM, Hugo Mills wrote:
> > >You may have missed the "on vacation" bit.
> >
> > I did read the "on vacation" bit. Not that it is any of my business,
Queue the Jeopardy music. A couple of weeks, pfft!
> Michael Cronenworth wrote:
>
> Does anyone have an update on this? I haven't seen any news for several
> weeks now.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kern
On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 03:24:28PM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> On 09/01/2011 03:20 PM, Hugo Mills wrote:
> >You may have missed the "on vacation" bit.
>
> I did read the "on vacation" bit. Not that it is any of my business,
> but how long is that vacation?
Your guess is as good as
On 09/01/2011 03:20 PM, Hugo Mills wrote:
You may have missed the "on vacation" bit.
I did read the "on vacation" bit. Not that it is any of my business, but
how long is that vacation?
The canonical place to look for btrfsck updates is the relevant FAQ
item on the btrfs wiki.
I kn
On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 02:14:00PM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> On 08/25/2011 10:06 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> >
> >Is there an update on this? I don't see any new code for
> >btrfs-progs-unstable, but I might be looking in the wrong place.
> >
> >Will this fsck tool be able to handle
On 08/25/2011 10:06 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Is there an update on this? I don't see any new code for
btrfs-progs-unstable, but I might be looking in the wrong place.
Will this fsck tool be able to handle problems such as:
"parent transid verify failed on # wanted # found #" ?
Does a
Hugo Mills carfax.org.uk> writes:
>
>If this is in decent shape, it's probably worth it to release it in
> its current form anyway (and possibly request a moratorium on extra
> patches until you've finished the optimisation). I suspect that
> there's a number of people out there who wouldn't
Chris Mason wrote:
There are always bugs to fix, and I have #1 and #2 mostly ready. I had
hoped to get #1 out the door before I left on vacation and I still might
post it tonight.
Hi Chris,
Is there an update on this? I don't see any new code for
btrfs-progs-unstable, but I might be looking
On Thu, 2011-08-18 at 16:50 -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> Excerpts from Yalonda Gishtaka's message of 2011-08-17 21:09:37 -0400:
> > Chris Mason oracle.com> writes:
> >
> > >
> > > Aside from making sure the kernel code is stable, btrfsck is all I'm
> > > working on right now. I do expect a relea
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 04:50:08PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> I've been working non-stop on this. Currently fsck has four parts:
This all looks like great stuff. Can't wait to try it out...
One thing strikes me for purposes of automated testing and
regression testing: Do you have tools or
Excerpts from Yalonda Gishtaka's message of 2011-08-17 21:09:37 -0400:
> Chris Mason oracle.com> writes:
>
> >
> > Aside from making sure the kernel code is stable, btrfsck is all I'm
> > working on right now. I do expect a release in the next two weeks that
> > can recover your data (and many
Chris Mason oracle.com> writes:
>
> Aside from making sure the kernel code is stable, btrfsck is all I'm
> working on right now. I do expect a release in the next two weeks that
> can recover your data (and many others).
>
> Thanks,
> Chris
> --
Chris,
We're all on the edge of our seats. C
On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 04:53:26PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> I do expect a release in the next two weeks that can recover your data (and
> many others).
I actually set an appointment reminder in my Blackberry for the two week
anniversary of this email. I expect today will be a milestone in the
2011/8/3 Chris Mason :
> Excerpts from Erik Jensen's message of 2011-08-03 02:57:24 -0400:
>> The lack of any information on when btrfsck might be ready is a real
>> headache to those deciding what to do with a corrupted file system.
>>
>> I am currently sitting on a btrfs array of 10 disks that ha
Excerpts from Erik Jensen's message of 2011-08-03 02:57:24 -0400:
> The lack of any information on when btrfsck might be ready is a real
> headache to those deciding what to do with a corrupted file system.
>
> I am currently sitting on a btrfs array of 10 disks that has been
> reporting "parent t
On 03.08.2011 08:57, Erik Jensen wrote:
> Had I known back in November 9 months would go by with no such tool, I
> would have certainly wiped the array and started over, as it was
> certainly not worth the wait. So here I am, several assurances of
> imminent release later, still wondering whether
The lack of any information on when btrfsck might be ready is a real
headache to those deciding what to do with a corrupted file system.
I am currently sitting on a btrfs array of 10 disks that has been
reporting "parent transid verify failed" since last November. While
the data on the drive is by
76 matches
Mail list logo
