Duncan posted on Fri, 02 Feb 2018 02:49:52 + as excerpted:
> As CMurphy says, 4.11-ish is starting to be reasonable. But you're on
> the LTS kernel 4.14 series and userspace 4.14 was developed in parallel,
> so btrfs-progs-3.14 would be ideal.
Umm... obviously that should be 4.14.
--
Dunca
Qu Wenruo posted on Fri, 02 Feb 2018 09:40:30 +0800 as excerpted:
>
> On 2018年02月02日 05:06, Patrik Ostrihon wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Today I saw warning in dmesg output. But I don't know what it means.
>> Could you help me please? Is it something dangerous for my dato on this
>> filesystem?
>>
>> T
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 6:40 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Fortunately btrfs-progs provides offline tool to fix it.
> You could use "btrfs rescue fix-device-size " to easily fix it.
> And since it's an offline tool, you need to umount your fs first.
>
This feature first appears in btrfs-progs v4.14.
On 2018年02月02日 05:06, Patrik Ostrihon wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Today I saw warning in dmesg output. But I don't know what it means.
> Could you help me please? Is it something dangerous for my dato on
> this filesystem?
>
> Thanks
>
> pa3k
>
> root@merkur:~# uname -a
>
> Linux merkur 4.14.8-041408-g
Oh and to be super clear, do not use --repair with 'btrfs check' until
there's a dev recommendation to try it. It should be safe, but is
still sometimes fragile in the multiple device case.
---
Chris Murphy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Patrik Ostrihon
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Today I saw warning in dmesg output. But I don't know what it means.
> Could you help me please? Is it something dangerous for my dato on
> this filesystem?
Is this a persistent warning you're getting or is it a one time message?
L
Hi,
Today I saw warning in dmesg output. But I don't know what it means.
Could you help me please? Is it something dangerous for my dato on
this filesystem?
Thanks
pa3k
root@merkur:~# uname -a
Linux merkur 4.14.8-041408-generic #201712200555 SMP Wed Dec 20
10:57:38 UTC 2017 x86_64 x86_64 x86_6
Austin S Hemmelgarn posted on Tue, 15 Sep 2015 14:46:28 -0400 as
excerpted:
> On 2015-09-15 14:42, Tyler Williams wrote:
>> So I only had qgroups enabled because at some point it seemed like it
>> gave me the size of individual snapshots. Would it be likely that if I
>> just removed qgroups from t
Fantastic. Thanks a ton
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Austin S Hemmelgarn
wrote:
> On 2015-09-15 14:53, Tyler Williams wrote:
>>
>> I'll give that a shot. This will be a lame questions, but what address
>> to I need to reply to for these messages to make it to the mailing
>> list? It looks lik
On 2015-09-15 14:53, Tyler Williams wrote:
I'll give that a shot. This will be a lame questions, but what address
to I need to reply to for these messages to make it to the mailing
list? It looks like I'm replying to you instead of to the mailing list
itself. Thanks
It's not a lame question at a
On 2015-09-15 14:42, Tyler Williams wrote:
So I only had qgroups enabled because at some point it seemed like it
gave me the size of individual snapshots. Would it be likely that if I
just removed qgroups from that volume that would prevent that message
in the future?
Maybe, I'm not entirely cer
On 2015-09-15 14:13, Tyler Williams wrote:
I've received several kernel warnings over the last few weeks. I
checked on the #BTRFS irc channel and it was suggested that I post the
relevant information here to see if this was something that I should
be worried about.
[root@tawilliams ~]# uname -a
I've received several kernel warnings over the last few weeks. I
checked on the #BTRFS irc channel and it was suggested that I post the
relevant information here to see if this was something that I should
be worried about.
[root@tawilliams ~]# uname -a
Linux tawilliams.williamstlr.net 4.1.6-201.f
13 matches
Mail list logo