Hi,
I am working on system storage manager (ssm) trying to implement
btrfs resize correctly, however I have some troubles with it.
# mkfs.btrfs /dev/sda /dev/sdb
# mount /dev/sda /mnt/test
# btrfs filesystem show
failed to open /dev/sr0: No medium found
Label: none uuid:
Similar to ocfs2, btrfs also supports that extents can be shared by
different inodes, and there are some userspace tools requesting
for this kind of 'space shared infomation'.[1]
ocfs2 uses flag FIEMAP_EXTENT_SHARED, so does btrfs.
[1]:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 17:11:49 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
There is no reason we can't just set the path to blocking and then do normal
GFP_NOFS allocations for these extent buffers. Thanks,
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik jba...@fusionio.com
You've forgotten at least one place.
static inline struct
This is a prepatory work for the following btrfs fi show command
fixes. So that we have a function get_df to get the fs sizes
v2:
combined the other patches as below and rebase
btrfs-progs: get string for the group profile and type
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain anand.j...@oracle.com
---
As of now btrfs filesystem show reads directly from
disks. So sometimes output can be stale, mainly when
user want to verify their last operation like,
labeling or device delete or add... etc.
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain anand.j...@oracle.com
---
cmds-filesystem.c | 166
create helper functions to use lblkid to scan for the
btrfs disks
When we are using the lblkid for scanning for btrfs disks,
we don't have to worry about the manually scanning the
/dev or /dev/mapper which means we don't need the
--all-devices (and proposed --mapper) options.
Signed-off-by:
This patch set is about
use of lblkid for the btrfs disk scan and
using this lblkid scan for the fi show and dev scan cli
This includes the comments from David (to use lblkid)
and Zach to show (btrfs fi show) info from kernel when
disk is mounted and from the disks directly when disk
This fix the regression introduced by 830427d
that it no more creates the FS if disk is small
and if no mixed option is provided.
This patch will bring it to the original design
which will force mixed profile when disk is small
and go ahead to create the FS.
Which also means that before we open
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 01:37:45PM +0200, Stefan Behrens wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 17:11:49 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
There is no reason we can't just set the path to blocking and then do normal
GFP_NOFS allocations for these extent buffers. Thanks,
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik
Hey Josef,
Sorry this took so long to commit, I did not see it had been reviewed.
Thanks again for the patch
--Rich
commit 617491caf44d5e93006d774da95f532e9d7de4c4
Author: Josef Bacik jba...@fusionio.com
Date: Tue Jul 2 19:17:18 2013 +
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
After we set force_compress with a new value (which was not being done
while holding the inode mutex), if an error happens and we jump to
the label out_ra, the force_compress property of the inode is not set
to BTRFS_COMPRESS_NONE (unlike in the case where no errors happen).
Signed-off-by: Filipe
This test failed for me with output from 'btrfs balance':
QA output created by 003
+Done, had to relocate 4 out of 4 chunks
+Done, had to relocate 5 out of 5 chunks
Silence is golden
Signed-off-by: Stefan Behrens sbehr...@giantdisaster.de
---
tests/btrfs/003 | 4 ++--
1 file
On 8/16/13 9:51 AM, Stefan Behrens wrote:
This test failed for me with output from 'btrfs balance':
QA output created by 003
+Done, had to relocate 4 out of 4 chunks
+Done, had to relocate 5 out of 5 chunks
Silence is golden
Signed-off-by: Stefan Behrens
This test failed for me with output from 'btrfs balance':
QA output created by 003
+Done, had to relocate 4 out of 4 chunks
+Done, had to relocate 5 out of 5 chunks
Silence is golden
Signed-off-by: Stefan Behrens sbehr...@giantdisaster.de
---
V1 - V2:
Redirect errors to
On 8/16/13 10:18 AM, Stefan Behrens wrote:
This test failed for me with output from 'btrfs balance':
QA output created by 003
+Done, had to relocate 4 out of 4 chunks
+Done, had to relocate 5 out of 5 chunks
Silence is golden
Signed-off-by: Stefan Behrens
Thanks Stefan for the patch, it has been committed without the special
header. ;)
--Rich
commit 0150222d1ceed701a637e0d271ddd36e4f489f7a
Author: Stefan Behrens sbehr...@giantdisaster.de
Date: Fri Aug 16 15:18:43 2013 +
xfstests: redirect output in btrfs/003
--
To unsubscribe from
So it appears that it only resized part of the file system which
lies on /dev/sda to 3G. This behavior is confusing as hell, is this
really desirable behaviour ?
Yeah, 'btrfs filesystem resize' is misnamed. It only resizes a
specified device which defaults to devid 1 if you don't specify one.
I have a 4 device volume with raid5 - trying to remove one of the
devices (plenty of free space) and I get an almost immediate segfault.
Scrub shows no errors, repair show space cache invalid but nothing
else (I remounted with clear cache to be safe). Lots of corrupt on
bdev (for 3 out of 4
The btrfs-progs tools changed the output:
- 100GiB instead of 100GB
- The number of spaces was changed
Signed-off-by: Stefan Behrens sbehr...@giantdisaster.de
---
common/filter | 2 +-
common/filter.btrfs | 3 ++-
tests/btrfs/006 | 6 +++---
tests/btrfs/006.out | 36
On 8/16/13 12:02 PM, Stefan Behrens wrote:
The btrfs-progs tools changed the output:
- 100GiB instead of 100GB
- The number of spaces was changed
ugh.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Behrens sbehr...@giantdisaster.de
---
common/filter | 2 +-
common/filter.btrfs | 3 ++-
tests/btrfs/006
Signed-off-by: Stefan Behrens sbehr...@giantdisaster.de
---
tests/btrfs/009 | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tests/btrfs/009 b/tests/btrfs/009
index d46744c..08aa508 100755
--- a/tests/btrfs/009
+++ b/tests/btrfs/009
@@ -47,6 +47,8 @@ _supported_fs btrfs
_supported_os Linux
On 8/16/13 12:44 PM, Stefan Behrens wrote:
Signed-off-by: Stefan Behrens sbehr...@giantdisaster.de
Reviewed-by: Eric Sandeen sand...@redhat.com
---
tests/btrfs/009 | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tests/btrfs/009 b/tests/btrfs/009
index d46744c..08aa508 100755
---
Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org
---
include/uapi/linux/btrfs.h | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/btrfs.h b/include/uapi/linux/btrfs.h
index 5ef0df5..7150b26 100644
--- a/include/uapi/linux/btrfs.h
+++
On Aug 16, 2013, at 10:30 AM, Zach Brown z...@redhat.com wrote:
So it appears that it only resized part of the file system which
lies on /dev/sda to 3G. This behavior is confusing as hell, is this
really desirable behaviour ?
Yeah, 'btrfs filesystem resize' is misnamed. It only resizes a
On Aug 16, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
When a Btrfs multiple device volume is shrunk resized, it directly affects
the partition size…
Oops, this obviously happens with single or multiple device.
I also think the command needs to return some information
If you are sending a snapshot and specifying a parent snapshot we will walk the
trees and figure out where they differ and send the differences only. The way
we check for differences are if the leaves aren't the same and if the keys are
not the same within the leaves. So if neither leaf is the
If you are sending a snapshot and specifying a parent snapshot we will walk the
trees and figure out where they differ and send the differences only. The way
we check for differences are if the leaves aren't the same and if the keys are
not the same within the leaves. So if neither leaf is the
Hi guys,
I package btrfs-progs for Arch Linux, and I'm wondering about its
current status.
I have seen repeated talk of making regular releases, but so far we
haven't had a proper release since v19 four years ago.
Are we to take from this that btrfs-progs is not suitable for
distribution yet,
Craig Johnson posted on Fri, 16 Aug 2013 11:50:59 -0500 as excerpted:
I have a 4 device volume with raid5 - trying to remove one of the
devices (plenty of free space) and I get an almost immediate segfault.
Scrub shows no errors, repair show space cache invalid but nothing
else (I remounted
Tom Gundersen posted on Sat, 17 Aug 2013 11:19:19 +0800 as excerpted:
I package btrfs-progs for Arch Linux, and I'm wondering about its
current status.
I have seen repeated talk of making regular releases, but so far we
haven't had a proper release since v19 four years ago.
Are we to
30 matches
Mail list logo
