Hello Helmut
On 01/03/2013 10:52 PM, Helmut Hullen wrote:
> I know a similar behaviour p.e. when I run
>
> btrfs-show
>
> Then btrfs seems to test all block devices in "/dev" (no "udev" system)
> and then tells most times
"btrfs-show" and "btrfs filesystem show" behave differently.
Th
On Jan 5, 2013, at 2:03 PM, Helmut Hullen wrote:
> Hallo, Chris,
>
> Du meintest am 05.01.13:
>
>
>>> Seems to be a problem which is invoked by "btrfs-show".
>
>> Old command. I'm not sure if it's kept up to date. You should use
>> 'btrfs filesystem show' or 'btrfs fi show' for short.
>
> Y
Hallo, Chris,
Du meintest am 05.01.13:
>> Seems to be a problem which is invoked by "btrfs-show".
> Old command. I'm not sure if it's kept up to date. You should use
> 'btrfs filesystem show' or 'btrfs fi show' for short.
Yes - i've learned my lesson ...
But then: the best solution for other p
On Sat, Jan 05, 2013 at 12:10:48PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Jan 5, 2013, at 6:15 AM, Helmut Hullen wrote:
> >
> > Seems to be a problem which is invoked by "btrfs-show".
>
> Old command. I'm not sure if it's kept up to date. You should use 'btrfs
> filesystem show' or 'btrfs fi show'
On Jan 5, 2013, at 6:15 AM, Helmut Hullen wrote:
>
> Seems to be a problem which is invoked by "btrfs-show".
Old command. I'm not sure if it's kept up to date. You should use 'btrfs
filesystem show' or 'btrfs fi show' for short.
Chris Murphy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "u
On Jan 5, 2013, at 5:44 AM, Helmut Hullen wrote:
>
> blkid from util-linux 2.21.2 (libblkid 2.21.0, 25-May-2012
> findfs from the same "util-linux" packet
> kernel 3.6.11
>
> Is that new enough?
I don't know. I'm running 3.6.11 and util-linux 2.22.1. The changelog for
2.22.x's have man
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 03.01.13:
>> My usual way:
>>
>> mkfs.btrfs -d raid0 -m raid1 /dev/sdb /dev/sdc /dev/sdd ...
>>
>> One call for some devices.
>> Wenn I add the option "-L mylabel" then each device gets the same
>> label, and therefore some other programs can't find the (one) d
Hallo, Martin,
Du meintest am 05.01.13:
>> No - I don't rely on such an assumption.
>> In the special case I'm just working with I want to use the whole
>> disk only for btrfs.
>>
>> In other cases I work with partitions, and there is just the same
>> problem: at least "blkid" and "findfs" don't
Am Donnerstag, 3. Januar 2013 schrieb Helmut Hullen:
> Hallo, Hugo,
Hi Helmut,
> Du meintest am 03.01.13:
>
> [...]
>
> >>> Trying to use filesystem labels to give unique and stable device
> >>> IDs is the wrong tool for the job.
>
> >> I beg to differ. On my machines it's the simpliest way, a
On Jan 4, 2013, at 1:59 PM, Helmut Hullen wrote:
>
> Additional:
>
> Working as "root":
>
>blkid
>
> hangs (at least sometimes).
Maybe use the latest debug kernel for your distro and see if you can reproduce
the hang, and what you get in dmesg with the debug kernel.
What version of
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 03.01.13:
[...]
>>> And then for blkid:
>>
>>> # blkid
>>> /dev/sdb: LABEL="test2" UUID="3d5390d0-a41b-4f70-a4e5-b47295d3c717"
>>> UUID_SUB="a5bbaa83-6d6f-45dc-9804-9442350c3bc9" TYPE="btrfs"
>>> /dev/sdc: LABEL="test2" UUID="3d5390d0-a41b-4f70-a4e5-b47295d3c717"
>>>
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 03.01.13:
>> On my system (a bundle of /dev/sdb, /dev/sdc, /dev/sdd)
>>
>> btrfs fi label /dev/sdb mylabel
>>
>> only sets the label on the (unmounted) device /dev/sdb. "/dev/sdc"
>> and "/dev/sdd" remain without label.
>This is a bug.
Very very strange .
Hallo, Chris,
Du meintest am 03.01.13:
>>> MBR has no mechanism for labeling the disk itself or the
>>> partitions. So /dev/sda cannot have a label or a name.
>> Sure?
> Yes. MBR itself has no place holder to encode a disk name or
> partition name. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_boot_recor
Hallo, Chris,
Du meintest am 03.01.13:
>>> On my system (a bundle of /dev/sdb, /dev/sdc, /dev/sdd)
>>>
>>>btrfs fi label /dev/sdb mylabel
>>>
>>> only sets the label on the (unmounted) device /dev/sdb. "/dev/sdc"
>>> and "/dev/sdd" remain without label.
>> This is a bug.
> It's a bug
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 03.01.13:
>> On my system (a bundle of /dev/sdb, /dev/sdc, /dev/sdd)
>>
>> btrfs fi label /dev/sdb mylabel
>>
>> only sets the label on the (unmounted) device /dev/sdb. "/dev/sdc"
>> and "/dev/sdd" remain without label.
>This is a bug.
Hmmm - I'll test it
On Jan 3, 2013, at 2:23 PM, Hugo Mills wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 09:28:00PM +0100, Helmut Hullen wrote:
>>
>> On my system (a bundle of /dev/sdb, /dev/sdc, /dev/sdd)
>>
>>btrfs fi label /dev/sdb mylabel
>>
>> only sets the label on the (unmounted) device /dev/sdb. "/dev/sdc" an
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 09:28:00PM +0100, Helmut Hullen wrote:
> Hallo, Chris,
>
> Du meintest am 03.01.13:
>
> > So 'btrfs fi label' relabeling with an unmounted system changes the
> > file system label metadata on all member devices, according to btrfs
> > fi label. Now when I use file:
>
> On
On Jan 3, 2013, at 12:59 PM, Helmut Hullen wrote:
>> MBR has no mechanism for labeling the disk itself or the partitions.
>> So /dev/sda cannot have a label or a name.
>
>
> Sure?
Yes. MBR itself has no place holder to encode a disk name or partition name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_
Hallo, Chris,
Du meintest am 03.01.13:
> So 'btrfs fi label' relabeling with an unmounted system changes the
> file system label metadata on all member devices, according to btrfs
> fi label. Now when I use file:
On my system (a bundle of /dev/sdb, /dev/sdc, /dev/sdd)
btrfs fi label /de
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 03.01.13:
[...]
>>> Trying to use filesystem labels to give unique and stable device
>>> IDs is the wrong tool for the job.
>> I beg to differ. On my machines it's the simpliest way, and it's a
>> sure way.
>No, because *it* *doesn't* *work*. This is not a bug.
Hallo, Chris,
Du meintest am 03.01.13:
> Device can mean more than one thing, physical device, partition, md
> device, logical volume, etc.
> Label is more narrowly defined to that of filesystems.
> MBR has no mechanism for labeling the disk itself or the partitions.
> So /dev/sda cannot have a
On Jan 3, 2013, at 12:18 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Jan 3, 2013, at 12:08 PM, hul...@t-online.de (Helmut Hullen) wrote:
>
>> Labelling via "btrfs filesystem label " works well.
>
> It's a bug. I'm able to reproduce it as well. The command language itself
> indicates its the fs that's to
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 08:08:00PM +0100, Helmut Hullen wrote:
> Hallo, Hugo,
>
> Du meintest am 03.01.13:
>
> But for what purpose offers "mkfs.btrfs" this option?
>
> >>>So that you don't have to run the label command immediately
> >>>after making the filesystem.
>
>
> >> But ot
Device can mean more than one thing, physical device, partition, md device,
logical volume, etc.
Label is more narrowly defined to that of filesystems.
MBR has no mechanism for labeling the disk itself or the partitions. So
/dev/sda cannot have a label or a name. Whereas with GPT, there is a fi
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 03.01.13:
But for what purpose offers "mkfs.btrfs" this option?
>>>So that you don't have to run the label command immediately
>>>after making the filesystem.
>> But other filesystems don't put the label onto more than 1 device.
>> There's the problem f
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 06:57:00PM +0100, Helmut Hullen wrote:
> Du meintest am 03.01.13:
> >> But for what purpose offers "mkfs.btrfs" this option?
>
> >So that you don't have to run the label command immediately after
> > making the filesystem. Most mkfs implementations for different
> > fil
Hallo, cwillu,
Du meintest am 03.01.13:
>> But other filesystems don't put the label onto more than 1 device.
>> There's the problem for/with btrfs.
> Other filesystems don't exist on more than one device, so of course
> they don't put a label on more than one device.
Yes, I know.
And let me re
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Helmut Hullen wrote:
> But other filesystems don't put the label onto more than 1 device.
> There's the problem for/with btrfs.
Other filesystems don't exist on more than one device, so of course
they don't put a label on more than one device.
--
To unsubscribe fr
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 03.01.13:
>> But for what purpose offers "mkfs.btrfs" this option?
>So that you don't have to run the label command immediately after
> making the filesystem. Most mkfs implementations for different
> filesystems have something similar, usually with the -L option.
common labels work for me on my 3 way raid volumes. there's been no problem.
what might be a problem is when i do mount LABEL=foo, btrfs dev scan
is not automatic on failure.
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Hugo Mills wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 05:29:00PM +0100, Helmut Hullen wrote:
>> Ha
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 05:29:00PM +0100, Helmut Hullen wrote:
> Hallo, Hugo,
>
> Du meintest am 03.01.13:
>
> >> please delete the option "-L" (for labelling) in "mkfs.btrfs", in
> >> some configurations it doesn't work as expected.
> >>
> >> My usual way:
> >>
> >> mkfs.btrfs -d raid0 -
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 03.01.13:
>> please delete the option "-L" (for labelling) in "mkfs.btrfs", in
>> some configurations it doesn't work as expected.
>>
>> My usual way:
>>
>> mkfs.btrfs -d raid0 -m raid1 /dev/sdb /dev/sdc /dev/sdd ...
>>
>> One call for some devices.
>> Wenn I a
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 04:14:00PM +0100, Helmut Hullen wrote:
> Hallo, linux-btrfs,
>
> please delete the option "-L" (for labelling) in "mkfs.btrfs", in some
> configurations it doesn't work as expected.
>
> My usual way:
>
> mkfs.btrfs -d raid0 -m raid1 /dev/sdb /dev/sdc /dev/sdd ..
33 matches
Mail list logo
