This is the second attempt for online data deduplication.
NOTE: This leads to a FORMAT CHANGE, DO NOT use it on real data!
Data deduplication is a specialized data compression technique for eliminating
duplicate copies of repeating data.[1]
This patch set is also related to "Content based storag
When we have data deduplication on, we'll hang on the merge part
because it needs to verify every queued delayed data refs related to
this disk offset.
And in the case of delayed data refs, we don't usually have too much
data refs to merge.
So it's safe to shut it down for data refs.
Signed-off-
(NOTE: This leads to a FORMAT CHANGE, DO NOT use it on real data.)
This introduce the online data deduplication feature for btrfs.
(1) WHY do we need deduplication?
To improve our storage effiency.
(2) WHAT is deduplication?
Two key ways for practical deduplication implementations,
*
From: Wang Shilong
Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong
---
fs/btrfs/transaction.c | 14 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
index c4a1531..a8e3c36 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
@
In the comment describing the sync_writers field of the btrfs_inode
struct, "fsyncing" was misspelled "fsycing."
Signed-off-by: Nathaniel Yazdani
---
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h b/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h
index d9b97d4..08b286b 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h
+++ b/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.
On 04/12/2013 11:57 PM, David Sterba wrote:
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 01:54:56PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
--- a/cmds-balance.c
+++ b/cmds-balance.c
@@ -662,8 +662,12 @@ static int cmd_balance_status(int argc, char **argv)
close(fd);
if (ret < 0) {
+ if (e == ENOTCO
We did not allow file data clone within the same file because of
deadlock issues.
However, we now use nested lock to avoid deadlock between the
parent directory and the child file.
So it's safe to do file clone within the same file when the two
ranges are not overlapped.
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo
-
On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 09:02:34 +0200, Jan Schmidt wrote:
+static int btrfs_close_extend_iref(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
+ unsigned long old_opts)
>>>
>>> The name irritated me, it's more like "unset" instead of "close", isn't it?
>>
>> Maybe "btrfs_set_no_ext
On Mon, April 15, 2013 at 04:58 (+0200), Miao Xie wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 09:02:34 +0200, Jan Schmidt wrote:
> +static int btrfs_close_extend_iref(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
> +unsigned long old_opts)
The name irritated me, it's more like "unse
Jan Schmidt 写道:
> On Mon, April 15, 2013 at 04:58 (+0200), Miao Xie wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 09:02:34 +0200, Jan Schmidt wrote:
>> +static int btrfs_close_extend_iref(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
>> + unsigned long old_opts)
> The name irritated
On Wed, April 10, 2013 at 18:47 (+0200), David Sterba wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 01:38:16PM +0200, Jan Schmidt wrote:
>> +if (root->fs_info->qgroup_flags & BTRFS_QGROUP_STATUS_FLAG_RESCAN) {
>
> I was wondering if merging qgroup_flags with fs_state would make sense
> to you. There are cu
On Mon, April 15, 2013 at 07:44 (+0200), Jan Schmidt wrote:
> Thanks, v2 to come.
Uh, but not immediately. I didn't get tracking of "exclusive" right. That will
need some time to fix and test.
-Jan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message
Hello Jan,
> On Mon, April 15, 2013 at 07:44 (+0200), Jan Schmidt wrote:
>> Thanks, v2 to come.
>
> Uh, but not immediately. I didn't get tracking of "exclusive" right. That will
> need some time to fix and test.
'exclusive' adds the complexity of btrfs qgroup.
So if you send V2. I'd like you a
v1->v2:
Accepts the review comments from David
Accepts the review comments from Stefan
Rebase changes
Adds the 10/11 and 11/11 which was outside this patch-set
Anand Jain (11):
btrfs-progs: root_item generation_v2 is out of sync after btrfsck
btrfs-progs: no pen
reproducing steps:
mkfs.btrfs /dev/dm-2 -f
mount /dev/dm-2 /btrfs
umount /btrfs
btrfs check /dev/dm-2 --repair
mount /dev/dm-2 /btrfs
btrfs: mismatching generation and generation_v2 found in root item. This root
was probably mounted with an older kernel. Resetting all new fields.
btrfs
Having no balance running/ paused/completed is a normal
situation, so the current output message should be positive
with return val zero.
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain
---
cmds-balance.c | 16 +---
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/cmds-balance.c b/cmds-balan
In the cases where one of the disk is not suitable for
btrfs, then we would fail the mkfs, however we determine
that after we have written btrfs to the preceding disks.
At this time if user changes mind for not to use btrfs
will left with no choice.
So this patch will check if all the provided dis
and get_btrfs_mount has replaced it
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain
---
utils.c | 35 ---
1 file changed, 35 deletions(-)
diff --git a/utils.c b/utils.c
index 67419da..926421c 100644
--- a/utils.c
+++ b/utils.c
@@ -977,41 +977,6 @@ out_mntloop_err:
return ret;
a very trivial fix
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain
---
cmds-scrub.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/cmds-scrub.c b/cmds-scrub.c
index 5922361..c0dc584 100644
--- a/cmds-scrub.c
+++ b/cmds-scrub.c
@@ -1465,7 +1465,7 @@ out:
}
static const char * const cmd_scr
If one of the copy of the superblock is zero it does not
confirm to us that btrfs isn't there on that disk. When
we are having more than one copy of superblock we should
rather let the for loop to continue to check other copies.
the following test case and results would justify the
fix
mkfs.btrfs
We should avoid using non multi-path (mp) path for mp disks
As of now there is no good way (like api) to check that.
A workaround way is to check if the O_EXCL open is unsuccessful.
This is safe since otherwise the BTRFS_IOC_SCAN_DEV ioctl would
fail if the disk-path can not be opened with the flag
when we have to report no such file error for
/dev/btrfs-control we could confirm if btrfs kernel
is present and report it and skip registration
where appropriate
v1->v2: use /proc/filesystems to check if the btrfs
is present
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain
---
cmds-device.c | 60
Trivial patch:
./btrfs-progs/btrfs-select-super -s 0 /dev/sdc
using SB copy 0, bytenr 65536
No valid Btrfs found on /dev/sdc
Open ctree failed
The line 'using..' is confusing which gives an
indication that command is successful
This patch will avoid that when command fails
Signed-off-by: Anand J
as of now in replace command target dev is being checked
for mounted and for existing fs, however there is newly
introduced test_dev_for_mkfs in mkfs.c which is suitable
for this job, and further it also checks if dev can be
opened for with O_EXCL. Its better to use test_dev_for_mkfs
Signed-off-by
A trivial fix: To match the events inside to what
being printed out
before:
::
adding device /dev/dm-3 id 2
adding device /dev/dm-4 id 3
adding device /dev/dm-5 id 4
fs created label (null) on /dev/dm-2
nodesize 4096 leafsize 4096 sectorsize 4096 size 213.20GB
Btrfs v0.20-rc1-235-gdd21bc1
---
Oh. this title prefix should be v2 not RESEND.
v1->v2
Accepts David review comments
Thanks, Anand
On 04/15/2013 02:38 PM, Anand Jain wrote:
Having no balance running/ paused/completed is a normal
situation, so the current output message should be positive
with return val zero.
Signed-off-
On 04/13/2013 12:06 AM, David Sterba wrote:
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 01:54:57PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
In the cases where one of the disk is not suitable for
btrfs, then we would fail the mkfs, however we determine
that after we have written btrfs to the preceding disks.
At this time if user
On Mon, April 15, 2013 at 08:08 (+0200), Wang Shilong wrote:
> Hello Jan,
>
>> On Mon, April 15, 2013 at 07:44 (+0200), Jan Schmidt wrote:
>>> Thanks, v2 to come.
>>
>> Uh, but not immediately. I didn't get tracking of "exclusive" right. That
>> will
>> need some time to fix and test.
>
>
> 'ex
28 matches
Mail list logo
