Hello
I'm running Ubuntu Lucid (2.6.32-14-generic-pae #20-Ubuntu SMP Sat Feb
20 07:07:46 UTC 2010 i686 GNU/Linux)
Doing online fsck.btrfs on 2TB volume dumps core:
$ sudo fsck.btrfs /dev/mapper/truecrypt1
parent transid verify failed on 899904352256 wanted 71346 found 71328
parent transid verify
(My previous post seems to have been discarded because of the
attachment size, I'm resending it without the dmesg output - which can
be found @ http://pastebin.com/T0J3z59j )
Hi,
yesterday I updated my kernel (clean clone from
mason/btrfs-unstable.gi), pulling in the single latest change I have
b
>
> I don't suppose you have the dmesg errors from the crash? This error
> shows the header in the block is incorrect, so either something was
> written to the wrong place or not written at all.
>
> Have you memtest86 on this system?
>
> How did it crash...was a power off used to reset the mach
Adam Kłobukowski wrote:
Hello
I'm running Ubuntu Lucid (2.6.32-14-generic-pae #20-Ubuntu SMP Sat Feb
20 07:07:46 UTC 2010 i686 GNU/Linux)
Doing online fsck.btrfs on 2TB volume dumps core:
fsck with the fs mounted is not supported.
there is a pending patch for fsck.btrfs to prevent it from
ru
W dniu 25.02.2010 15:08, jim owens pisze:
> Adam Kłobukowski wrote:
>> Hello
>>
>> I'm running Ubuntu Lucid (2.6.32-14-generic-pae #20-Ubuntu SMP Sat Feb
>> 20 07:07:46 UTC 2010 i686 GNU/Linux)
>>
>> Doing online fsck.btrfs on 2TB volume dumps core:
>
> fsck with the fs mounted is not supported.
>
2010/2/25 Adam Kłobukowski :
> Is it possible to find out if I've done any harm to the fs by trying to
> do online fsck?
btrfsck doesn't make any changes to the filesystem, so no harm will
have been done.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a me
On 02/24/2010 05:58 PM, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
a) resize the underling partition (with fdisk)
b) resize the filesystem (with btrfsctl -r ).
Thanks for the reply. These steps worked fine :-) Just got used to using
gparted for many years rather than carefully writing down cylinder
start/e
On Friday 19 February 2010, Sage Weil wrote:
[...]
> We could trivially make this happen only when there is a new snapshot, to
> get the behavior you expect (see patch below). If the goal is to make a
> perfectly consistent snapshot of the file system, this is better than
>
> sync ; btrfs
Mounting btrfs corrupts memory and causes nasty crashes within a few
seconds. This seems to happen even if the mount fails (note the
unrecognized mount option). This is a regression from 2.6.32, and
I've attached an example.
--Andy
Btrfs loaded
device fsid cf4a8e080605f191-af91bbbf445c98b8 devi
On Wednesday 24 February 2010, Andrew Carlson wrote:
> I was wondering if there is a newer BTRFS version floating around
> somewhere. The version tag on the one I got from git is "Btrfs
> v2.6.27-rc7-59199-g3f6fae9", which seems kinda old, even though the
> kernel is 2.6.32. Thanks, and sorry for
I've got the same error before in a similar situation (24 partitions,
only two with problems). Unfortunally I erased all data after this
error. Strange that all I've done was shutdown and poweron the
machine.
Gustavo Junior Alves
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Bill Pemberton
wrote:
>
>
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 03:01:08PM -0500, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> Mounting btrfs corrupts memory and causes nasty crashes within a few
> seconds. This seems to happen even if the mount fails (note the
> unrecognized mount option). This is a regression from 2.6.32, and
> I've attached an exampl
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 03:01:08PM -0500, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>> Mounting btrfs corrupts memory and causes nasty crashes within a few
>> seconds. This seems to happen even if the mount fails (note the
>> unrecognized mount option). This
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 03:29:34PM -0500, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 03:01:08PM -0500, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> >> Mounting btrfs corrupts memory and causes nasty crashes within a few
> >> seconds. This seems to hap
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 03:12:05PM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> I got below oops when doing file write with mount option max_extent=1M
> It appears the accouting is already done in set/clear/split/merge hooks and
> I don't see reason why we need do accouting in __btrfs_remove_ordered_extent
> again.
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
>
> Ok it looks like we have a problem kfree'ing the wrong stuff. we kstrdup the
> options string, but then strsep screws with the pointer, so when we kfree()
> it,
> we're not giving it the right pointer. Please try this patch, and mount with
I have changed the btrfs code to ignore checksum failures and now I
can read files correctly from the filesystem. Also, moving them onto
another volume and then back into btrfs fixes the checksums and no
more errors are reported for the file in question.
Quick and dirty code I used for getting my
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 03:29:34PM -0500, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 03:01:08PM -0500, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>> >> Mounting btrfs corrupts memory and causes n
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Leszek Ciesielski wrote:
> I have changed the btrfs code to ignore checksum failures and now I
> can read files correctly from the filesystem. Also, moving them onto
> another volume and then back into btrfs fixes the checksums and no
> more errors are reported fo
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Leszek Ciesielski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> in a long overdue followup to my previous email, I am sending a patch
> that modifies the result of running 'df' against a btrfs volume. I
> understand that, give the simplicity of 'df', there is not 'correct'
> solution - I do th
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 10:34:22AM +0100, Leszek Ciesielski wrote:
> (My previous post seems to have been discarded because of the
> attachment size, I'm resending it without the dmesg output - which can
> be found @ http://pastebin.com/T0J3z59j )
>
> Hi,
>
> yesterday I updated my kernel (clean
21 matches
Mail list logo
