Hi Gui,
Am Donnerstag, 21. August 2014, 11:35:36 schrieb Gui Hecheng:
> A memory problem reported by valgrind as follows:
> === Syscall param pwrite64(buf) points to uninitialised byte(s)
> When running:
> # valgrind --leak-check=yes btrfs restore /dev/sda9 /mnt/backup
>
> Because the
A long time back there was an attempt to remove it but
this avoided it. Pls ref to the link in this discussion.
https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org/msg27272.html
Thanks, Anand
On 08/21/2014 06:21 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
btrfs fileystem show and btrfs device scan today
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:04:30AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
> Original Message
> Subject: [PATCH 01/15] btrfs: new test to run btrfs balance and
> subvolume test simultaneously
> From: Eryu Guan
> To:
> Date: 2014年08月21日 01:33
> >Run btrfs balance and subvolume create/mount/um
Shriramana Sharma posted on Thu, 21 Aug 2014 08:52:52 +0530 as excerpted:
> Hello. People on this list have been kind enough to reply to my
> technical questions. However, seeing the high number of mails on this
> list, esp with the title PATCH, I have a question about the development
> itself:
>
Original Message
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/15] btrfs: new test to run btrfs balance and
subvolume test simultaneously
From: Dave Chinner
To: Qu Wenruo
Date: 2014年08月21日 17:01
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:04:30AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Original Message
Subject
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 05:15:01PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
> Original Message
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/15] btrfs: new test to run btrfs balance and
> subvolume test simultaneously
> From: Dave Chinner
> To: Qu Wenruo
> Date: 2014年08月21日 17:01
> >On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:04:
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:24:37AM -0700, Zach Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 01:33:48AM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote:
> > This patchset add new stress test cases for btrfs by running two
> > different btrfs operations simultaneously under fsstress to ensure
> > btrfs doesn't hang or oops in such
On Thu, 2014-08-21 at 10:14 +0200, Marc Dietrich wrote:
> Hi Gui,
>
> Am Donnerstag, 21. August 2014, 11:35:36 schrieb Gui Hecheng:
> > A memory problem reported by valgrind as follows:
> > === Syscall param pwrite64(buf) points to uninitialised byte(s)
> > When running:
> > # valgrind --l
On Mon, 2014-08-18 at 11:25 +0200, Marc Dietrich wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I did a checkout of the latest btrfs progs to repair my damaged filesystem.
> Running btrfs restore gives me several failed to inflate: -6 and crashes with
> some memory corruption. I ran it again with valgrind and got:
>
> valgr
Hello!
Am Donnerstag, 21. August 2014, 08:52:52 schrieb Shriramana Sharma:
> Hello. People on this list have been kind enough to reply to my
> technical questions. However, seeing the high number of mails on this
> list, esp with the title PATCH, I have a question about the
> development itself:
>
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 07:01:05PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:04:30AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> >
> > Original Message
> > Subject: [PATCH 01/15] btrfs: new test to run btrfs balance and
> > subvolume test simultaneously
> > From: Eryu Guan
> > To:
"btrfs check" is still under heavy development and so there are some
BUGs beging hit. "btrfs check" can be run on limited environment which
lacks gdb to debug the abort in detail. If we could see backtrace, it
will be easier to find a root cause of the BUG.
Following is my "btrfs check" output wit
free_some_buffer() should not free dirty extent buffers. They should be
left for later commit.
Signed-off-by: Naohiro Aota
---
extent_io.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/extent_io.c b/extent_io.c
index a127e54..8a668be 100644
--- a/extent_io.c
+++ b/extent_io
Am Donnerstag, 21. August 2014, 17:52:16 schrieb Gui Hecheng:
> On Mon, 2014-08-18 at 11:25 +0200, Marc Dietrich wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I did a checkout of the latest btrfs progs to repair my damaged
> > filesystem.
> > Running btrfs restore gives me several failed to inflate: -6 and crashes
> > w
On 8/21/14, 3:44 AM, Anand Jain wrote:
>
>
> A long time back there was an attempt to remove it but
> this avoided it. Pls ref to the link in this discussion.
>
> https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org/msg27272.html
Hm, I guess I don't understand this. How is udev related
> It's trivial to write this as a bunch of helper functions and then
> boiler-plate the actual tests themselves. There will be little
> difference in terms of run time, but we get much more fine-grained
> control of execution and reporting
Sure, that's reasonable, given the xfstests infrastruc
On 08/21/2014 12:21 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> btrfs fileystem show and btrfs device scan today both have
> the "-d" option to scan everything under /dev. But we also
> have a mechanism to scan everything in /proc/partitions, which
> should always be sufficient.
>
> If anyone knows why we'd find s
On 8/20/14, 10:35 PM, Gui Hecheng wrote:
> A memory problem reported by valgrind as follows:
> === Syscall param pwrite64(buf) points to uninitialised byte(s)
> When running:
> # valgrind --leak-check=yes btrfs restore /dev/sda9 /mnt/backup
>
> Because the output buf size is alloced wi
On 8/21/14, 1:42 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 8/20/14, 10:35 PM, Gui Hecheng wrote:
>> A memory problem reported by valgrind as follows:
>> === Syscall param pwrite64(buf) points to uninitialised byte(s)
>> When running:
>> # valgrind --leak-check=yes btrfs restore /dev/sda9 /mnt/backup
>
Hello Hugo and Zach!
a big thanks to both of you!
Both Hugo's userspace workaround and
Zach's patch work fine for me - the /boot snapshot can be restored
completely as expected :-)
Will now try with the bigger snapshots ...
Thanks again,
Klaus
Am 2014-08-20 um 00:22 schrieb Hugo Mills:
> On T
On 19/08/14 12:21 PM, M G Berberich wrote:
we are thinking about using BtrFS on standard hardware for a
fileserver with about 50T (100T raw) of storage (25×4TByte).
...
· Are there any reports/papers/web-pages about BtrFS-systems this size
in use? Praises, complains, performance-reviews, wh
A user reported corruption after receiving subvolumes. Turning up the
logging during the receive showed that the commands and string
attributes were being received correctly but the u64 attrbutes were
sometimes corrupted by having variable number of low order bytes
introduced.
It turned out they
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 09:03:16PM +0200, Klaus Holler wrote:
> Hello Hugo and Zach!
>
> a big thanks to both of you!
>
> Both Hugo's userspace workaround and
> Zach's patch work fine for me - the /boot snapshot can be restored
> completely as expected :-)
Cool, glad to hear it. I sent a proper
Short version:
When I mkfs.btrfs either an SD Card or an SSD, I get a response back to the
effect the whole device specified is trimmed. However, when I use fstrim on an
SD Card, I get an error that trim isn't supported. So I'm wondering if anyone
knows the difference between how fstrim is trimm
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 05:52:01AM +, Mihail Zaporozhets wrote:
> # btrfs-zero-log /dev/sda1
> warning devid 5 not found already
> Check tree block failed, want=16845270495232, have=0
> read block failed check_tree_block
> Couldn't read tree root
You may be hitting the
I just created
https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Btrfs-zero-log
and added the info about this failure of btrfs-zero-log as well as the
patch from Chris.
Whenever it's in a new version of btrfs-zero-log, I or someone else can
update that wiki page to tell people to just update to a newer ver
I may have answered my own question using strace. And for whatever reason this
time fstrim worked.
fstrim
ioctl(3, FITRIM, 0x7fffbf6b87e0)
…
write(1, "/mnt/: 13.9 MiB (14598144 bytes)"…, 41/mnt/: 13.9 MiB (14598144
bytes) trimmed
Clearly this is only erasing what the file system is aware of ha
Hello people. Thank you for your detailed replies, esp Duncan.
In essence, I plan on using BTRFS for my production data -- mainly
programs/documents I write in connection with my academic research.
I'm not a professional sysadmin and I'm not running a business server.
I'm just managing my own data
When corrupting extent tree, corrupt-block will iterate each child
node/leaf of a node.
However, when a node's child is leaf, btrfs_corrupt_extent_leaf() may
delete some item in the leaf, which may cause the children number of the
parent node decrease.
Before this patch, corrupt-block will read ou
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 09:10:55AM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
> Hello people. Thank you for your detailed replies, esp Duncan.
>
> In essence, I plan on using BTRFS for my production data -- mainly
> programs/documents I write in connection with my academic research.
> I'm not a professional
On Thu, 2014-08-21 at 16:19 +0200, Marc Dietrich wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 21. August 2014, 17:52:16 schrieb Gui Hecheng:
> > On Mon, 2014-08-18 at 11:25 +0200, Marc Dietrich wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I did a checkout of the latest btrfs progs to repair my damaged
> > > filesystem.
> > > Running
On 22/8/2014 6:40 πμ, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
Hello people. Thank you for your detailed replies, esp Duncan.
In essence, I plan on using BTRFS for my production data -- mainly
programs/documents I write in connection with my academic research.
I'm not a professional sysadmin and I'm not running
32 matches
Mail list logo
