Hello
I did the following commands and resulted in a segmentation fault.
[r...@localhost ~]# mkfs.btrfs /dev/sda6
WARNING! - Btrfs Btrfs v0.19 IS EXPERIMENTAL
WARNING! - see http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org before using
fs created label (null) on /dev/sda6
nodesize 4096 leafsize 4096 sector
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 8:24 AM, Simon Kirby wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 08:31:10AM +0800, Yan, Zheng wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 4:30 AM, Dave Cundiff wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > I installed the git repo kernel and added some debug to the ENOSPC
>> > returns. Unfortunately its stil
Chris Mason wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 05:42:00PM +0900, Donggeun Kim wrote:
>> In some cases, resizing a file system to the maximum device size is required.
>> When flashing a file system image to a block device,
>> the file system does not fit into the block device's size.
>> Currently, exe
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 08:34:43PM +0900, Donggeun Kim wrote:
> Chris Mason wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 05:42:00PM +0900, Donggeun Kim wrote:
> >> In some cases, resizing a file system to the maximum device size is
> >> required.
> >> When flashing a file system image to a block device,
> >
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 08:34:43PM +0900, Donggeun Kim wrote:
>> Chris Mason wrote:
>> > On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 05:42:00PM +0900, Donggeun Kim wrote:
>> >> In some cases, resizing a file system to the maximum device size is
>> >> required.
>>
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 10:45:00PM +0900, Kyungmin Park wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 08:34:43PM +0900, Donggeun Kim wrote:
> >> Chris Mason wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 05:42:00PM +0900, Donggeun Kim wrote:
> >> >> In some cases,
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 10:45:00PM +0900, Kyungmin Park wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
>> > On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 08:34:43PM +0900, Donggeun Kim wrote:
>> >> Chris Mason wrote:
>> >> > On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 0
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 10:56:18PM +0900, Kyungmin Park wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 10:45:00PM +0900, Kyungmin Park wrote:
> >> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Chris Mason
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 08:34:43PM +0900, D
Hi!
I also wanted to use btrfs-images, but changed my mind when I got troubles
with several btrfs file systems derived from the same image.
If more than one of these file system were physically connected at the same
time, mounting one of them resulted in a mess. I think they all used the same
int
Dear BTRFS devs,
still trying to find the cause for https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12309 i stumbled over the strange fact that the
flush-btrfs-1 thread is writing about 1MiBps constantly onto my root fs, even after turning off io-prone BOINC and NTOP.. there are
other threads doing
On Di, 06.07.10 20:16 Chris Mason wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 03:15:04PM -0700, Yee-Ting Li wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > i think my btrfs volume is hosed it mounts okay, but iostat
> > shows /dev/sdg on 100% load. dmesg shows lots of 'parent transid
> > verify failed on x wanted y found z'. t
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 08:48:40PM +0200, Thomas Kuther wrote:
> On Di, 06.07.10 20:16 Chris Mason wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 03:15:04PM -0700, Yee-Ting Li wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > i think my btrfs volume is hosed it mounts okay, but iostat
> > > shows /dev/sdg on 100% load. dm
I found this in the wiki page
https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Getting_started :
Note: to be mounted the subvolume or snapshot have to be in the root
of the btrfs filesystem.
But is this an intentional requirement or just a known bug?
Thanks
Kunshan Wang
2010/8/4 wks1986 :
> Hello
>
> I
13 matches
Mail list logo
