Hello, i'm started balancing on my raid0:
$ btrfs fi show
Label: none uuid: efdcd026-f5f0-49e7-a173-8eb777018119
Total devices 3 FS bytes used 4.57TB
devid3 size 1.82TB used 1.82TB path /dev/sdd
devid1 size 1.82TB used 1.82TB path /dev/sdc
devid2 size 1
On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 10:23:01PM -0700, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Doing this would reliably fail with -EBUSY for me:
>
> # mount /dev/sdb2 /mnt/scratch; umount /mnt/scratch; mkfs.btrfs -f /dev/sdb2
> ...
> unable to open /dev/sdb2: Device or resource busy
>
> because mkfs.btrfs tries to open the de
On 3/9/13 6:27 AM, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 10:23:01PM -0700, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> Doing this would reliably fail with -EBUSY for me:
>>
>> # mount /dev/sdb2 /mnt/scratch; umount /mnt/scratch; mkfs.btrfs -f /dev/sdb2
>> ...
>> unable to open /dev/sdb2: Device or resource busy
On Sat, Mar 09, 2013 at 07:17:04AM -0700, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 3/9/13 6:27 AM, Chris Mason wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 10:23:01PM -0700, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >> Doing this would reliably fail with -EBUSY for me:
> >>
> >> # mount /dev/sdb2 /mnt/scratch; umount /mnt/scratch; mkfs.btrfs -
Doing this would reliably fail with -EBUSY for me:
# mount /dev/sdb2 /mnt/scratch; umount /mnt/scratch; mkfs.btrfs -f /dev/sdb2
...
unable to open /dev/sdb2: Device or resource busy
because mkfs.btrfs tries to open the device O_EXCL, and somebody still has it.
Using systemtap to track bdev gets
On 1/18/13 3:48 PM, Koen De Wit wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Koen De Wit
Sorry for the late review. Better late than never?
cc'ing linux-btrfs - in general a good idea so btrfs experts
can evaluate the test as well.
> ---
> 297 | 75
> +
On 1/18/13 3:48 PM, Koen De Wit wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Koen De Wit
same basic comments as for the previous test:
need definition of _require_cp_reflink somewhere
need to add test to groups file
remove & recreate testdir to avoid collisions (or mktemp maybe?)
use _filter_test_dir in md5sum outpu
On 3/9/13 11:47 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 1/18/13 3:48 PM, Koen De Wit wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Koen De Wit
>
> same comments as the others; looks good otherwise.
(whoops, cc: btrfs list)
> -Eric
>
>> ---
>> 299 | 69
>> +++
On 1/18/13 3:48 PM, Koen De Wit wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Koen De Wit
>
> ---
> 300 | 84
> +++
> 300.out |4 +++
> 2 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 300
> create mode 100644 300.out
>
Some time ago, and occasionally since, we've discussed altering the
"RAID-n" terminology to change it to an "nCmSpP" format, where n is the
number of copies, m is the number of (data) devices in a stripe per copy,
and p is the number of parity devices in a stripe.
The current kernel implemen
Signed-off-by: Hugo Mills
---
cmds-filesystem.c | 135 -
1 file changed, 114 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
diff --git a/cmds-filesystem.c b/cmds-filesystem.c
index 2210020..8ecc21a 100644
--- a/cmds-filesystem.c
+++ b/cmds-filesystem.c
@@ -39
Balance filters are the second location which takes user input of
replication levels. Update this to use the common parser so that we can
provide nCmSpP-style names.
Signed-off-by: Hugo Mills
---
cmds-balance.c | 23 ---
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
dif
Teach mkfs.btrfs about nCmSpP format for replication levels, which avoids
the semantic uncertainty over the "RAID-XYZ" naming.
Signed-off-by: Hugo Mills
---
mkfs.c | 91 +++-
1 file changed, 84 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --gi
Make parse_profile a shared function so it can be used across the
code-base.
Signed-off-by: Hugo Mills
Conflicts:
mkfs.c
---
mkfs.c | 94 ---
utils.c | 94 +++
ut
Signed-off-by: Hugo Mills
---
man/btrfs.8.in |9 +
man/mkfs.btrfs.8.in | 24 +++-
2 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/man/btrfs.8.in b/man/btrfs.8.in
index 94f4ffe..2799ec7 100644
--- a/man/btrfs.8.in
+++ b/man/btrfs.8.in
@@ -25,6
On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Hugo Mills wrote:
>Some time ago, and occasionally since, we've discussed altering the
> "RAID-n" terminology to change it to an "nCmSpP" format, where n is the
> number of copies, m is the number of (data) devices in a stripe per copy,
> and p is the number of
On Sat, Mar 09, 2013 at 10:31:25PM +0100, Harald Glatt wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Hugo Mills wrote:
>
> >Some time ago, and occasionally since, we've discussed altering the
> > "RAID-n" terminology to change it to an "nCmSpP" format, where n is the
> > number of copies, m is the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/03/13 12:31, Hugo Mills wrote:
> Some time ago, and occasionally since, we've discussed altering the
> "RAID-n" terminology to change it to an "nCmSpP" format, where n is
> the number of copies, m is the number of (data) devices in a stripe per
So, no advice on how this could have happened?
Ok, maybe it won't happen again...
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Alex Lyakas
wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 5:28 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 03, 2013 at 06:40:50AM -0700, Alex Lyakas wrote:
>>> Greetings all,
>>> I have an
On 1/18/13 3:48 PM, Koen De Wit wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Koen De Wit
>
> ---
> 301 | 95
> +++
> 301.out |7
> 2 files changed, 102 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 301
> create mode 100644 301.out
On 1/18/13 3:48 PM, Koen De Wit wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Koen De Wit
>
> ---
> 303 | 127
> +++
> 303.out | 72 +++
> group |7 +++
> 3 files changed, 206 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
On 1/18/13 3:48 PM, Koen De Wit wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Koen De Wit
>
> ---
> 302 | 108
> +++
> 302.out | 28
> 2 files changed, 136 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 302
> create mode 100
On Sat, Mar 09, 2013 at 02:25:25PM -0800, Roger Binns wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 09/03/13 12:31, Hugo Mills wrote:
> > Some time ago, and occasionally since, we've discussed altering the
> > "RAID-n" terminology to change it to an "nCmSpP" format, where n is
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/03/13 17:44, Hugo Mills wrote:
> You've got at least three independent parameters to the system in order
> to make that choice, though, and it's a fairly fuzzy decision problem.
> You've got:
>
> - Device redundancy - Storage overhead - Performa
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Roger Binns wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 09/03/13 17:44, Hugo Mills wrote:
>> You've got at least three independent parameters to the system in order
>> to make that choice, though, and it's a fairly fuzzy decision problem.
>> You
> Very good points,
>
> I was also gonna write something by the lines of 'all that matters is
> achieving the minimum amount of redundancy, as requested by the user,
> at the maximum possible performance'.
>
> After reading your post now, Roger, I'm much more clear on what I
> actually wanted to sa
26 matches
Mail list logo
