Hi All,
I'm trying to repair a broken fs using btrfsck and am hitting a failed
assertion. I'd appreciate any suggestions for what to do next. Is there any
thing I can do to help fix this bug? Any other information from my FS which
would help? If the FS could be salvaged that would be a bonus, b
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 05:26:38AM -0700, Richard Cooper wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'm trying to repair a broken fs using btrfsck and am hitting a failed
> assertion. I'd appreciate any suggestions for what to do next. Is there any
> thing I can do to help fix this bug? Any other information from my
Is it possible that you deliver btrfs management utilities come in a C
library form? It is always good to have a C API and CLI utility
separation. Take libparted as an example. How much more functionality is
in gparted than the (standard) cli parted? Writting tools by direct
access to an API is
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 ...
One call for some devices.
Wenn I add the option "-L mylabel" then each devi
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 ..
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 01:55:13PM +, Hugo Mills wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 08:38:54AM -0500, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
> > I know that I can find out what btrfs "volumes" are on a system with
> > the command:
> > btrfs fi show
> >
> > I can also check if a partition of disk is a btr
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 05:01:17PM +0800, Liu Bo wrote:
> commit d53ba47484ed6245e640ee4bfe9d21e9bfc15765
> (Btrfs: use commit root when loading free space cache) has remove
> the deadlock check, and the related comments can be removed as well.
>
> Signed-off-by: Liu Bo
1-8
Reviewed-by: David St
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 05:25:20PM +0200, Georgios Tsalikis wrote:
> Is it possible that you deliver btrfs management utilities come in a C
> library form? It is always good to have a C API and CLI utility separation.
> Take libparted as an example. How much more functionality is in gparted than
>
On 3 Jan 2013, at 15:06, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 05:26:38AM -0700, Richard Cooper wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I'm trying to repair a broken fs using btrfsck and am hitting a failed
>> assertion. I'd appreciate any suggestions for what to do next. Is there
>> anything I can do
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 -
Hi Mathieu,
Sorry for the late reply. I had quite a good reproducer once for what I suspect
may be your problem here - but it suddenly stopped reproducing the problem and I
still haven't figured out why. (see https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/1773611/
if you're interested)
Can you please give th
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
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.
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, 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 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
Hi Josef,
Thanks for the patch - sorry for the long delay in testing...
On 12/18/2012 06:52 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 06:52:37PM -0700, Liu Bo wrote:
>> An user reported that he has hit an annoying deadlock while playing with
>> ceph based on btrfs.
>>
>> Current updating
> > 1. Would btrfsck be the appropriate program to run at bootup? If it
> > is, with what parameters?
>
>No, it's not necessary to run an fs checker on every boot. You can
> either turn off the checks in fstab, or symlink /sbin/fsck.btrfs to
> /bin/true.
For what it's worth, I gather that th
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
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
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
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 Jan 3, 2013, at 1:08 PM, Zach Brown wrote:
>>> 1. Would btrfsck be the appropriate program to run at bootup? If it
>>> is, with what parameters?
>>
>> No, it's not necessary to run an fs checker on every boot. You can
>> either turn off the checks in fstab, or symlink /sbin/fsck.btrfs to
>
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
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:
> 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
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_
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 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
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
32 matches
Mail list logo
