On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 5:12 AM Hendrik Friedel wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I have a filesystem which is sometimes very slow, or even currently
> hangs deleting a file (plain and simple rm in bash).
>
> Label: 'DataPool1' uuid: c4a6a2c9-5cf0-49b8-812a-0784953f9ba3
> Total devices 2 FS bytes us
On Mon, Dec 3, 2018, at 4:31 AM, Stefan Malte Schumacher wrote:
> I have noticed an unusual amount of crc-errors in downloaded rars,
> beginning about a week ago. But lets start with the preliminaries. I
> am using Debian Stretch.
> Kernel: Linux mars 4.9.0-8-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 4.9.110-3+deb9u4
>
On 2018/12/3 下午5:31, Stefan Malte Schumacher wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have noticed an unusual amount of crc-errors in downloaded rars,
> beginning about a week ago. But lets start with the preliminaries. I
> am using Debian Stretch.
> Kernel: Linux mars 4.9.0-8-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 4.9.110-3+deb9u4
On 5.11.18 г. 2:23 ч., Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Great, then it's completely free space cache causing the problem.
>
> You could use -o nospace_cache mount option to avoid the problem as a
> workaround.
>
> Free space cache only speed up free extent search, it doesn't has extra
> effect on the fs (ex
Adam Borowski posted on Sun, 04 Nov 2018 20:55:30 +0100 as excerpted:
> On Sun, Nov 04, 2018 at 06:29:06PM +, Duncan wrote:
>> So do consider adding noatime to your mount options if you haven't done
>> so already. AFAIK, the only /semi-common/ app that actually uses
>> atimes these days is mu
On 2018/11/5 上午1:00, Sebastian Ochmann wrote:
> Thank you very much for the quick reply.
>
> On 04.11.18 14:37, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2018/11/4 下午9:15, Sebastian Ochmann wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I have a btrfs filesystem on a single encrypted (LUKS) 10 TB drive which
>>> stopped working
On Sun, Nov 04, 2018 at 06:29:06PM +, Duncan wrote:
> So do consider adding noatime to your mount options if you haven't done
> so already. AFAIK, the only /semi-common/ app that actually uses atimes
> these days is mutt (for read-message tracking), and then not for mbox, so
> you should be
On 04.11.18 19:31, Duncan wrote:
[This mail was also posted to gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs.]
Sebastian Ochmann posted on Sun, 04 Nov 2018 14:15:55 +0100 as
excerpted:
Hello,
I have a btrfs filesystem on a single encrypted (LUKS) 10 TB drive
which stopped working correctly.
Kernel 4.18.16
Sebastian Ochmann posted on Sun, 04 Nov 2018 14:15:55 +0100 as excerpted:
> Hello,
>
> I have a btrfs filesystem on a single encrypted (LUKS) 10 TB drive which
> stopped working correctly.
> Kernel 4.18.16 (Arch Linux)
I see upgrading to 4.19 seems to have solved your problem, but this is
more
Thank you very much for the quick reply.
On 04.11.18 14:37, Qu Wenruo wrote:
On 2018/11/4 下午9:15, Sebastian Ochmann wrote:
Hello,
I have a btrfs filesystem on a single encrypted (LUKS) 10 TB drive which
stopped working correctly. The drive is used as a backup drive with zstd
compression to w
On 2018/11/4 下午9:15, Sebastian Ochmann wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a btrfs filesystem on a single encrypted (LUKS) 10 TB drive which
> stopped working correctly. The drive is used as a backup drive with zstd
> compression to which I regularly rsync and make daily snapshots. After I
> routinely re
On 2018/10/23 上午4:02, Gervais, Francois wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think I lost power on my btrfs disk and it looks like it is now in an
> unfunctional state.
What does the word "unfunctional" mean?
Unable to mount? Or what else?
>
> Any idea how I could debug that issue?
>
> Here is what I have:
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 12:42 PM, Vote 539 wrote:
> I have a btrfs filesystem that I use as a target for send/receive incremental
> snapshots. I use btrbk to perform hourly backups.
>
> The target filesystem was offline for a few days. When I mounted it today,
> the filesystem was read-only, w
Hi Nikolay,
Updating to 4.15 seems to have fixed it.
Thanks!
Matthew
On 04/18/2018 05:48 PM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
On 17.04.2018 19:08, Matthew Lai wrote:
Hello!
I am getting ENOSPC on my root filesystem with plenty of unallocated
space according to "fi usage". Any idea why that may be?
On 17.04.2018 19:08, Matthew Lai wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I am getting ENOSPC on my root filesystem with plenty of unallocated
> space according to "fi usage". Any idea why that may be? This is a root
> partition for Debian Stable. Not doing anything unusual that I'm aware
> of. No snapshots.
>
> Th
Op 12-06-17 om 01:00 schreef Chris Murphy:
> On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 4:13 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>
>>> Op 11 jun. 2017, om 12:05 heeft Koen Kooi het
>>> volgende geschreven:
>>>
Op 11 jun. 2017, om 06:20 heeft Chris Murphy het
volgende geschreven:
On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at
Op 12-06-17 om 00:58 schreef Chris Murphy:
[..]
> Also worth trying btrfs check --mode=lowmem. This doesn't repair but
> is a whole new implementation so it might find the source of the
> problem better than the current fsck.
I ran it under 'catchsegv' to give more data where it segfaults, here'
> Op 12 jun. 2017, om 00:58 heeft Chris Murphy het
> volgende geschreven:
>
> On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 4:05 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>
>>> Op 11 jun. 2017, om 06:20 heeft Chris Murphy het
>>> volgende geschreven:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 1:57 PM, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Fri, Jun 09, 2
On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 4:13 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>
>> Op 11 jun. 2017, om 12:05 heeft Koen Kooi het
>> volgende geschreven:
>>
>>>
>>> Op 11 jun. 2017, om 06:20 heeft Chris Murphy het
>>> volgende geschreven:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 1:57 PM, Hugo Mills wrote:
>
> [..]
>
>>> I'd say ta
On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 4:05 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>
>> Op 11 jun. 2017, om 06:20 heeft Chris Murphy het
>> volgende geschreven:
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 1:57 PM, Hugo Mills wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 09:12:16PM +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
Hi,
Today the kernel got wedged d
> Op 11 jun. 2017, om 12:05 heeft Koen Kooi het
> volgende geschreven:
>
>>
>> Op 11 jun. 2017, om 06:20 heeft Chris Murphy het
>> volgende geschreven:
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 1:57 PM, Hugo Mills wrote:
[..]
>> I'd say take a btrfs-image and put it up somewhere and also file a
>> bu
> Op 11 jun. 2017, om 06:20 heeft Chris Murphy het
> volgende geschreven:
>
> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 1:57 PM, Hugo Mills wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 09:12:16PM +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Today the kernel got wedged during shutdown (4.11.x tends to do that,
>>> haven't
>>>
On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 1:57 PM, Hugo Mills wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 09:12:16PM +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Today the kernel got wedged during shutdown (4.11.x tends to do that, haven't
>> debugged) and I pressed the reset button. The next boot btrfs won't mount:
>>
>> [Fri Jun 9
Op 09-06-17 om 21:57 schreef Hugo Mills:
> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 09:12:16PM +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Today the kernel got wedged during shutdown (4.11.x tends to do that, haven't
>> debugged) and I pressed the reset button. The next boot btrfs won't mount:
>>
>> [Fri Jun 9 20:46:07 2
On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 09:12:16PM +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Today the kernel got wedged during shutdown (4.11.x tends to do that, haven't
> debugged) and I pressed the reset button. The next boot btrfs won't mount:
>
> [Fri Jun 9 20:46:07 2017] BTRFS error (device md0): parent transid v
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Jeffrey Michels wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've booted into the latest nightly build of Fedora and run btrfs rescue
> super-recover -v and also btrfs check.
>
> Super-recover reports that "All supers are valid, no need to recover." Btrfs
> check displays the same error
From: ch...@colorremedies.com [mailto:ch...@colorremedies.com] On Behalf Of
Chris Murphy
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 7:08 PM
To: Jeffrey Michels
Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Filesystem will remount read-only
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 8:57 AM, Jeffrey Michels wrote:
> Hello,
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> If -o recovery doesn't work, you'll need to use something newer, you
> could use one of:
>
> Fedora Rawhide nightly with 4.8rc6 kernel and btrfs-progs 4.7.2. This
> is a small netinstall image. dd to a USB stick, choose Troubleshooting
> opt
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 8:57 AM, Jeffrey Michels wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a system that has been in production for a few years. The SAN the VM
> was running on had a hardware failure about a month ago and now one of the
> two btrfs filesystems will remount after boot read-only. Here is the s
Jeffrey Michels posted on Fri, 16 Sep 2016 14:57:43 + as excerpted:
> Hello,
>
> I have a system that has been in production for a few years. The SAN
> the VM was running on had a hardware failure about a month ago and now
> one of the two btrfs filesystems will remount after boot read-only.
On 2016-09-13 16:39, Cesar Strauss wrote:
On 13-09-2016 16:49, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
I'd be kind of curious to see the results from btrfs check run without
repair, but I doubt that will help narrow things down any further.
Attached.
As of right now, the absolute first thing I'd do is
>From the fsck...
bad block 160420741120
I can't tell though if that's a bad Btrfs leaf/node where both dup
copies are bad; or if it's a bad sector.
I'd mount it ro, and take a backup of anything you care about before
proceeding further.
smartctl -x might reveal if there are problems the drive
On 13-09-2016 16:39, Chris Murphy wrote:
I just wouldn't use btrfs repair with this version of progs, go back
to v4.6.1 or upgrade to 4.7.2.
Thanks for the tip. I upgraded to 4.7.2.
Cesar
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to maj
On 13-09-2016 16:49, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
I'd be kind of curious to see the results from btrfs check run without
repair, but I doubt that will help narrow things down any further.
Attached.
As of right now, the absolute first thing I'd do is check your logs to
see if you can find any
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn
wrote:
> On 2016-09-13 15:20, Cesar Strauss wrote:
>>
>> btrfs-progs v4.7
>
> It's always good to see people who are staying up-to-date on the kernel and
> userspace :)
Yes, although it and 4.7.1 are marked as do not use.
https://btrfs.wiki.
On 2016-09-13 15:20, Cesar Strauss wrote:
Hello,
I have a BTRFS filesystem that is reverting to read-only after a few
moments of use. There is a stack trace visible in the kernel log, which
is attached.
Here is my system information:
# uname -a
Linux rescue 4.7.2-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Sat Aug
I just wouldn't use btrfs repair with this version of progs, go back
to v4.6.1 or upgrade to 4.7.2. You could do an offline check (no
repair) and see if that reveals anything useful for developers. But I
can't tell what's going on from the call trace.
--
Chris Murphy
--
To unsubscribe from thi
On 2016-07-05 15:55, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
On 2016-07-05 14:56, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
Getting this lengthy output logged, and the fs mounter read-only after
a power outage.
Tried also 4.6.3, but it ends just alike.
Jul 5 02:04:20 bkp011 kernel: [ 799.298303] [ cut here
]
On 2016-07-05 14:56, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
Getting this lengthy output logged, and the fs mounter read-only after
a power outage.
Tried also 4.6.3, but it ends just alike.
Jul 5 02:04:20 bkp011 kernel: [ 799.298303] [ cut here
]
Jul 5 02:04:20 bkp011 kernel: [ 7
On 07/02/2016 09:40 PM, Hans van Kranenburg wrote:
On 07/02/2016 09:18 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Hans van Kranenburg
wrote:
On 07/02/2016 07:14 PM, Hans van Kranenburg wrote:
I just rebooted a VM into a 4.7 kernel. The joy didn't last long. After
177 seconds th
On 07/02/2016 09:18 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Hans van Kranenburg
wrote:
On 07/02/2016 07:14 PM, Hans van Kranenburg wrote:
I just rebooted a VM into a 4.7 kernel. The joy didn't last long. After
177 seconds the btrfs data partition (root is on ext4) locked up.
On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Hans van Kranenburg
wrote:
> On 07/02/2016 07:14 PM, Hans van Kranenburg wrote:
>>
>> I just rebooted a VM into a 4.7 kernel. The joy didn't last long. After
>> 177 seconds the btrfs data partition (root is on ext4) locked up. Worse,
>> it keeps locking up on any a
On 07/02/2016 07:14 PM, Hans van Kranenburg wrote:
I just rebooted a VM into a 4.7 kernel. The joy didn't last long. After
177 seconds the btrfs data partition (root is on ext4) locked up. Worse,
it keeps locking up on any action performed even when rebooting it with
older kernels again. D: The
It overflowed the dmesg buffer but hopefully contains enough cores -
https://mark.zealey.org/download/btrfs_crash.txt
Some other output:
# mount
/dev/sdb1 on / type btrfs (rw,noatime,skip_balance,subvol=@)
proc on /proc type proc (rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev)
sysfs on /sys type sysfs (rw,noexec,nosu
Hi Mark,
Could you do below when the hang happens, and post the dmesg.
echo w > /proc/sysrq-trigger
2016-01-04 9:35 GMT+01:00 Mark Zealey :
> Hi there, I've run into a very strange hang with btrfs. I was trying to
> restore a directory (postgres database) from a readonly snapshot. To do this
> i
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 12:33 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Donald Pearson posted on Sun, 11 Oct 2015 11:46:14 -0500 as excerpted:
>
>> Kernel 4.2.2-1.el7.elrepo btrfs-progs v4.2.1
>>
>> I'm attempting to convert a filesystem from raid6 to raid10. I didn't
>> have any functional probl
Donald Pearson posted on Sun, 11 Oct 2015 11:46:14 -0500 as excerpted:
> Kernel 4.2.2-1.el7.elrepo btrfs-progs v4.2.1
>
> I'm attempting to convert a filesystem from raid6 to raid10. I didn't
> have any functional problems with it, but performance is abysmal
> compared to basically the same arra
There appears to be some regressions in btrfs-convert that are in the
list archive over the last month in particular - but I think the
problems particularly started to surface about 6ish months ago. When I
filed the bugs I was seeing with converted ext4 file systems, they
were completely consistent
I'm now running ram tests today. After that, I can get the metadata
dump and the debug command. Tonight, I will get you this info.
Thank you for your help.
Sincerely,
Joshua
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kerne
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:11:36PM -0700, Joshua Schmidlkofer wrote:
> I have a large-ish filesystem, and it's starting to cause problems
> after some SATA errors.
>
> After scrubs stalled, and reading of people with similar errors, I
> downloaded the latest btrfs-progs and attempted a btrfsck - i
Original Message
Subject: Filesystem with Errors, Unusual behavior
From: Joshua Schmidlkofer
To:
Date: 2015年04月28日 14:11
I have a large-ish filesystem, and it's starting to cause problems
after some SATA errors.
After scrubs stalled, and reading of people with similar err
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 11:28:39AM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Nov 3, 2014, at 9:31 PM, Zygo Blaxell wrote:
> > It needs to be more than a sequential number. If one of the disks
> > disappears we need to record this fact on the surviving disks, and also
> > cope with _both_ disks claiming to
On 11/04/2014 10:28 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Nov 3, 2014, at 9:31 PM, Zygo Blaxell wrote:
Now we have two disks with equal generation numbers. Generations 6..9
on sda are not the same as generations 6..9 on sdb, so if we mix the
two disks' metadata we get bad confusion.
It needs to be more
Chris Murphy posted on Tue, 04 Nov 2014 11:28:39 -0700 as excerpted:
>> It needs to be more than a sequential number. If one of the disks
>> disappears we need to record this fact on the surviving disks, and also
>> cope with _both_ disks claiming to be the "surviving" one.
>
> I agree this is a
On Nov 3, 2014, at 9:31 PM, Zygo Blaxell wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 10:11:18AM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 2, 2014, at 8:43 PM, Zygo Blaxell wrote:
>>> btrfs seems to assume the data is correct on both disks (the generation
>>> numbers and checksums are OK) but gets confused
Zygo Blaxell posted on Mon, 03 Nov 2014 23:31:45 -0500 as excerpted:
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 10:11:18AM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 2, 2014, at 8:43 PM, Zygo Blaxell
>> wrote:
>> > btrfs seems to assume the data is correct on both disks (the
>> > generation numbers and checksums ar
On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 10:11:18AM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Nov 2, 2014, at 8:43 PM, Zygo Blaxell wrote:
> > btrfs seems to assume the data is correct on both disks (the generation
> > numbers and checksums are OK) but gets confused by equally plausible but
> > different metadata on each
On Nov 2, 2014, at 8:43 PM, Zygo Blaxell wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 02:57:22PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>
>> For example if I have a two device Btrfs raid1 for both data and
>> metadata, and one device is removed and I mount -o degraded,rw one
>> of them and make some small changes, un
On 11/02/2014 06:55 PM, Tobias Holst wrote:
But I can't do a balance anymore?
root@t-mon:~# btrfs balance start /dev/sda1
ERROR: can't access '/dev/sda1'
Balance takes place on a mounted filesystem not a native block device.
So...
mount -t btrfs /dev/sda1 /some/path/somewhere
btrfs balance s
On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 02:57:22PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Nov 1, 2014, at 10:49 PM, Robert White wrote:
>
> > On 10/31/2014 10:34 AM, Tobias Holst wrote:
> >> I am now using another system with kernel 3.17.2 and btrfs-tools 3.17
> >> and inserted one of the two HDDs of my btrfs-RAID1 to
Thank you for your reply.
I'll answer in-line.
2014-11-02 5:49 GMT+01:00 Robert White :
> On 10/31/2014 10:34 AM, Tobias Holst wrote:
>>
>> I am now using another system with kernel 3.17.2 and btrfs-tools 3.17
>> and inserted one of the two HDDs of my btrfs-RAID1 to it. I can't add
>> the second
On Nov 1, 2014, at 10:49 PM, Robert White wrote:
> On 10/31/2014 10:34 AM, Tobias Holst wrote:
>> I am now using another system with kernel 3.17.2 and btrfs-tools 3.17
>> and inserted one of the two HDDs of my btrfs-RAID1 to it. I can't add
>> the second one as there are only two slots in that s
On 10/31/2014 10:34 AM, Tobias Holst wrote:
I am now using another system with kernel 3.17.2 and btrfs-tools 3.17
and inserted one of the two HDDs of my btrfs-RAID1 to it. I can't add
the second one as there are only two slots in that server.
This is what I got:
tobby@ubuntu: sudo btrfs check
I am now using another system with kernel 3.17.2 and btrfs-tools 3.17
and inserted one of the two HDDs of my btrfs-RAID1 to it. I can't add
the second one as there are only two slots in that server.
This is what I got:
tobby@ubuntu: sudo btrfs check /dev/sdb1
warning, device 2 is missing
warning
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 9:02 PM, Tobias Holst wrote:
> Addition:
> I found some posts here about a general file system corruption in 3.17
> and 3.17.1 - is this the cause?
> Additionally I am using ro-snapshots - maybe this is the cause, too?
>
> Anyway: Can I fix that or do I have to reinstall? H
Addition:
I found some posts here about a general file system corruption in 3.17
and 3.17.1 - is this the cause?
Additionally I am using ro-snapshots - maybe this is the cause, too?
Anyway: Can I fix that or do I have to reinstall? Haven't touched the
filesystem, just did a scrub (found 0 errors).
On Thu, 17 Apr 2014 10:24:32 +0800
Miao Xie wrote:
> > scsi_request_fn+0x31/0x4dc [scsi_mod] [120462.559546]
> > [] ? ktime_get_ts+0x50/0xb7 [120462.559594]
> > [] ? delayacct_end+0x77/0x82 [120462.559641]
> > [] ? __lock_page+0x63/0x63 [120462.559688]
> > [] schedule+0x6a/0x6c [120462.559734]
>
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 11:10:33PM -0700, Chip Turner wrote:
> Thank you for the extremely detailed and helpful reply. I now
> understand what was happening. To me, when I read "total=" I guess I
> thought that was capacity rather than allocated (but now "holey")
> chunks. I agree that perhaps a
Thank you for the extremely detailed and helpful reply. I now
understand what was happening. To me, when I read "total=" I guess I
thought that was capacity rather than allocated (but now "holey")
chunks. I agree that perhaps adjusting the phrasing of the output of
df and show would be helpful i
Chip Turner posted on Thu, 10 Apr 2014 15:40:22 -0700 as excerpted:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Hugo Mills wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 01:00:35PM -0700, Chip Turner wrote:
>>> btrfs show:
>>> Label: none uuid: 04283a32-b388-480b-9949-686675fad7df
>>> Total devices 1 FS bytes used 13
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Hugo Mills wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 01:00:35PM -0700, Chip Turner wrote:
>> btrfs show:
>> Label: none uuid: 04283a32-b388-480b-9949-686675fad7df
>> Total devices 1 FS bytes used 135.58GiB
>> devid1 size 238.22GiB used 238.22GiB path /dev/sdb2
>>
>> bt
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 01:00:35PM -0700, Chip Turner wrote:
> I have a filesystem that I can't seem to resolve ENOSPC issues. No
> write operation can succeed; I've tried the wiki's suggestions
> (balancing, which fails because of ENOSPC, mounting with nodatacow,
> clear_cache, nospace_cache, eno
Hi,
> Some general notes .. VM images ... While NOCOW will prevent COW ...
As mentioned the VM is configured to access the partition where linux
is installed directly.
So btrfs is not used as filesystem on the host machine, but rather on
the guest which writes directly to disk (so no other files
On Mar 3, 2014, at 8:50 AM, Clemens Eisserer wrote:
> When booting fsck reports the filesystem is 26% non-continous.
I don't know what this means. There is no boot time fsck for Btrfs. So could
you post the messages you're receiving and state what distribution and kernel
version you're using?
Clemens Eisserer posted on Mon, 03 Mar 2014 16:50:35 +0100 as excerpted:
> I am using btrfs on a single device with crompress-force=lzo and after I
> scrubbed the device once (kernel-3.12), the filesystem is extremly
> fragmented - running defrag on all file didn't improve the situation
> unfourtu
Hello Rodrigo,
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Rodrigo Dias Cruz wrote:
> I had the very same problem some days ago.
>
> I have not yet found out how to fix the broken btrfs filesystem. However, I
> have been able to recover all my files from the filesystem and copy them to
> a brand new ext4 f
Alexander Skwar gmail.com> writes:
>
> Hi
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Alexander Skwar
> gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello Josef
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:21 PM, Josef Bacik fusionio.com>
wrote:
> >
> >> Pull down my tree
> >>
> >> git://github.com/josefbacik/btrfs-progs.git
> >>
Hi
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Alexander Skwar
wrote:
> Hello Josef
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:21 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
>
>> Pull down my tree
>>
>> git://github.com/josefbacik/btrfs-progs.git
>>
>> and build and run the fsck in there and see if it's a bit more friendly.
>
> I just ga
Hello Josef
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:21 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> Pull down my tree
>
> git://github.com/josefbacik/btrfs-progs.git
>
> and build and run the fsck in there and see if it's a bit more friendly.
I just gave it a try, but wasn't successful, it seems… Kernel still
crashes.
Maybe ch
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 09:08:26PM +, Alexander Skwar wrote:
> Hello
>
> I think, I somewhat destroyed my btrfs filesystem on my Ubuntu 13.04 kernel
> 3.8.0-25-lowlatency system. It got destroyed, because the system was hanging
> for some other reason and I had to remove power...
>
> When I
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 7:43 PM, Dan Merillat wrote:
>
> first off: this was just junk data, and is all readable in degraded
> mode anyway.
>
> Label: 'ROOT' uuid: cc80d150-af98-4af4-bc68-c8df352bda4f
> Total devices 2 FS bytes used 138.00GB
> devid1 size 232.79GB used 189.04GB
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Sami Haahtinen wrote:
> The kernel I started seeing the problems is 3.6.0 and I was on 3.6.2
> during the few final moments. I have backups of the filesystem, but
> I'm a bit curious what is causing this. I've seen mentions of other
> segfault causing problems, so
Am Sonntag, 5. August 2012 schrieb Florian Lindner:
> Hello,
Hi Florian,
> I was playing with btrfs and accidentally formatted the disk directly
> (/dev/sdb instead of sdb1). Since then I rewrote the GPT partition
> table, recreated the partition and ran btrfs device scan. Still, btrfs
> filesyst
Am Sonntag, 5. August 2012 schrieb Florian Lindner:
> Hello,
Hi Florian,
> I was playing with btrfs and accidentally formatted the disk directly
> (/dev/sdb instead of sdb1). Since then I rewrote the GPT partition
> table, recreated the partition and ran btrfs device scan. Still, btrfs
> filesyst
Hallo, Florian,
Du meintest am 05.08.12:
> I was playing with btrfs and accidentally formatted the disk directly
> (/dev/sdb instead of sdb1). Since then I rewrote the GPT partition
> table, recreated the partition and ran btrfs device scan. Still,
> btrfs filesystem show prints:
> root@horus /m
Am Freitag, 3. August 2012 schrieb serial...@lavabit.com:
> > Alex Elsayed wrote:
> >
> > Just realized I messed up sending this to the list.
> >
> > Roman Mamedov wrote:
> >> On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 23:26:42 -0400 (EDT)
> >>
> >> serial...@lavabit.com wrote:
> >>> 1) is there a tool to help me reco
> Alex Elsayed wrote:
>
> Just realized I messed up sending this to the list.
>
> Roman Mamedov wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 23:26:42 -0400 (EDT)
>> serial...@lavabit.com wrote:
>>
>>> 1) is there a tool to help me recover data from my fs? I don't have a
>>> backup of my partition table and so I
Alex Elsayed wrote:
> offset 0x10040 (64K + 64 bytes) there's the string BHRfS (hex 5F 42 48 52
> 66 53 5f). That matches the documentation (the first superblock should be
Ugh, and resending it stripped the underscores. _BHRfS_ is at 0x10040, not
BHRfS (which would be at 0x10041)
--
To unsubscri
Just realized I messed up sending this to the list.
Roman Mamedov wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 23:26:42 -0400 (EDT)
> serial...@lavabit.com wrote:
>
>> 1) is there a tool to help me recover data from my fs? I don't have a
>> backup of my partition table and so I have about 500GB of space where a
> On Mon, 2012-07-30 at 23:26 -0400, serial...@lavabit.com wrote:
>> Hi all, so I've filled out an awesome ID10T form this weekend (all
>> starting with a forded update) and completely annialated my
>> partitions...
>> I was running btrfs and was wondering 2 things:
>>
>> 1) is there a tool to help
On Mon, 2012-07-30 at 23:26 -0400, serial...@lavabit.com wrote:
> Hi all, so I've filled out an awesome ID10T form this weekend (all
> starting with a forded update) and completely annialated my partitions...
> I was running btrfs and was wondering 2 things:
>
> 1) is there a tool to help me recov
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 23:26:42 -0400 (EDT)
serial...@lavabit.com wrote:
> 1) is there a tool to help me recover data from my fs? I don't have a
> backup of my partition table and so I have about 500GB of space where a
> few partitionns might reside... GPT partitions mind you
If you only lost the pa
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:42:26AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 06:39:03PM +0300, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:31:15AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > > On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 11:03:06PM -0400, Jeremy Atkins wrote:
> > > > Back story:
> > > > I started my
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:42:26AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 06:39:03PM +0300, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:31:15AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > > On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 11:03:06PM -0400, Jeremy Atkins wrote:
> > > > Back story:
> > > > I started my
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 06:39:03PM +0300, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:31:15AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 11:03:06PM -0400, Jeremy Atkins wrote:
> > > Back story:
> > > I started my pool with a 200gb partition at the end of my drive (sdc5)
> > > , unti
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:31:15AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 11:03:06PM -0400, Jeremy Atkins wrote:
> > Back story:
> > I started my pool with a 200gb partition at the end of my drive (sdc5)
> > , until I was able to clear out the data at the beginning of my drive.
> > Wh
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 11:03:06PM -0400, Jeremy Atkins wrote:
> Back story:
> I started my pool with a 200gb partition at the end of my drive (sdc5)
> , until I was able to clear out the data at the beginning of my drive.
> When I was ready, I ran `btrfs dev add /dev/sdc4 /` then `btrfs dev
> del
Am Sat, 25 Feb 2012 20:05:13 -0800
schrieb Fahrzin Hemmati :
> No, at least not yet, nor am I aware of any plans for subvolume
> quotas, though I could be wrong.
Arne Jansen is working on it, IIRC.
regards,
Johannes
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
On Sunday 26 February 2012 19:52:06 Duncan wrote:
> It's astonishing to me the number of people that come in here
> complaining about problems with a filesystem the kernel option of
> which says
>
> Title:
>
> Btrfs filesystem (EXPERIMENTAL) Unstable disk format
On the other hand, if they didn
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 6:50 PM, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> Is 2010-06-01 really the last time the tools were considered
> stable or are Ubuntu just being conservative and/or lazy about updating?
The last one :)
Or probably no one has bugged them enough and point out they're
already using a git s
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
