Original Message
Subject: Read-only filesystem
From: Radosław Kintzi
To:
Date: 2014年12月27日 16:01
Hello
The problem:
Every time I start my browser, file system is remounted in read-only
mode.
The cause:
I believe the problem originates from hard reset I had to do.
The detai
Am Montag, 29. Dezember 2014, 02:08:21 schrieb Duncan:
> Martin Steigerwald posted on Sun, 28 Dec 2014 17:58:17 +0100 as excerpted:
>
> > The fstrim on /home returns immediately. It does not even seem to trim
> > anything. What could be the cause for that?
>
> While I don't know your mapper layou
Am Sonntag, 28. Dezember 2014, 16:27:41 schrieb Robert White:
> On 12/28/2014 07:42 AM, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> > Am Sonntag, 28. Dezember 2014, 06:52:41 schrieb Robert White:
> >> On 12/28/2014 04:07 AM, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> >>> Am Samstag, 27. Dezember 2014, 20:03:09 schrieb Robert Whi
Am Sonntag, 28. Dezember 2014, 14:56:21 schrieb Martin Steigerwald:
> Am Sonntag, 28. Dezember 2014, 14:40:32 schrieb Martin Steigerwald:
> > Am Sonntag, 28. Dezember 2014, 14:00:19 schrieb Martin Steigerwald:
> > > Am Samstag, 27. Dezember 2014, 14:55:58 schrieb Martin Steigerwald:
> > > > Summari
Am Sonntag, 28. Dezember 2014, 21:07:05 schrieb Zygo Blaxell:
> On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 08:23:59PM +0100, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> > My simple test case didn´t trigger it, and I so not have another twice 160
> > GiB available on this SSDs available to try with a copy of my home
> > filesystem. T
Am Montag, 29. Dezember 2014, 07:15:11 schrieb Ankur Tank:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Anand Jain [mailto:anand.j...@oracle.com]
> > Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 8:21 AM
> > To: Ankur Tank; linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
> > Subject: Re: btrfs doesn't format eMMC if previous filesyste
Thank you for reply Anand & Matrin,
Okay I understand the intention now.
I know it's not the forum to address issues related to mkfs commands
But I think, options used should be same across the mkfs.XXX commands.
Another irregularity is
mkfs.f2fs takes "-l" to apply label, while
mkfs.ext4 take "-
That's by design. More over this is nothing specific to eMMC.
Thanks.
On 29/12/2014 15:15, Ankur Tank wrote:
Hi Anand,
Precondition : Previous filesystem on eMMC was --- ext4
Use case : Now format eMMC to btrfs format, using ---mkfs.btrfs---
mkfs.btrfs denies formatting eMMC telling
Am Sonntag, 28. Dezember 2014, 18:04:31 schrieb Patrik Lundquist:
> On 28 December 2014 at 13:03, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> >
> > BTW, I found that the Oracle blog didn´t work at all for me. I completed
> > a cycle of defrag, sdelete -c and VBoxManage compact, [...] and it
> > apparently did *no
Am Montag, 29. Dezember 2014, 09:55:13 schrieb Ankur Tank:
> Thank you for reply Anand & Matrin,
>
> Okay I understand the intention now.
> I know it's not the forum to address issues related to mkfs commands
> But I think, options used should be same across the mkfs.XXX commands.
> Another irregu
Am Sonntag, 28. Dezember 2014, 17:58:17 schrieb Martin Steigerwald:
> Hi!
>
> After my recent tests with my /home filesystem and the up and downsizing of
> it I get:
>
>
> merkaba:~> LANG=C fstrim -v /home
> /home: 0 B (0 bytes) trimmed
> merkaba:~> LANG=C fstrim -v /
> /: 24.5 GiB (26257555
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 02:52:04PM +0900, Satoru Takeuchi wrote:
> I once submit the similar patch to btrfs-progs.
> Then Gui Hecheng tell me fixing original code in kernel
> is better.
The kernel header is exported and the authoritative source for the ioctl
definitions, progs usually copy the req
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 09:55:14AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> When btrfs allocate a chunk, it will try to alloc up to 1G for data and
> 256M for metadata, or 10% of all the writeable space if there is enough
> space for the stripe on device.
>
> However, when we run out of space, this allocation ma
On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 06:21:41PM +0900, Satoru Takeuchi wrote:
> From: Satoru Takeuchi
> --- a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c
> @@ -2190,7 +2190,7 @@ void btrfs_free_io_failure_record(struct inode *inode,
> u64 start, u64 end)
>
> next = next_state(state);
>
On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Marc MERLIN wrote:
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 01:00:47AM +0500, Roman Mamedov wrote:
> Will btrfs scrub, even if it takes about 24H to run for me, tell
me
> which FS is affected and if so do I run btrfs repair?
I had this:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 10:17:00AM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
> I've hit this recently on my laptop, and haven't yet been able to
> recreate it on a machine where I can debug things. The messages are
> an error in the log tree replay code, and I don't think they are
> actually related to any corrup
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Marc MERLIN wrote:
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 10:17:00AM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
I've hit this recently on my laptop, and haven't yet been able to
recreate it on a machine where I can debug things. The messages are
an error in the log tree replay code, and I
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 03:22:53PM +0800, Gui Hecheng wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Gui Hecheng
> Reviewed-by: Satoru Takeuchi
> ---
> changelog
> v1->v2: s/\'E\'(EiB)/or \'E\'(EiB)/ as suggested by Satoru, thanks.
> ---
> Documentation/btrfs-filesystem.txt | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertio
On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 09:16:35AM +0800, Gui Hecheng wrote:
> Now, if exec:
> # btrfs-debug-tree
> it echos:
> : Superblock bytenr is larger than device size
>
> But it is quite misleading, because it is a valid btrfs.
> In this case, we should tell the developer to provide a block d
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 07:37:59PM +0900, Satoru Takeuchi wrote:
> --- a/send-utils.h
> +++ b/send-utils.h
> @@ -37,10 +37,10 @@ extern "C" {
> #define BTRFS_COMPAT_SEND_NO_UUID_TREE 1
>
> enum subvol_search_type {
> - subvol_search_by_root_id,
> - subvol_search_by_uuid,
> - subvol_
Hi,
there a few more bugfixes that appeared during last week, I did more
testing and am going to release 3.18 tomorrow.
david
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.
specifically (P)arity. very specifically n+2. when will raid5 & raid6
be at least as safe to run as raid1 currently is? I don't like the
idea of being 2 bad drives away from total catastrophe.
(and yes i backup, it just wouldn't be fun to go down that route.)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send
oh, and sorry to bump myself. but is raid10 *ever* more redundant in
btrfs-speak than raid1? I currently use raid1 but i know in mdadm
speak raid10 means you can lose 2 drives assuming they aren't the
"wrong ones", is it safe to say with btrfs / raid 10 you can only lose
one no matter what?
--
To u
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 01:00:05PM -0600, sys.syphus wrote:
> oh, and sorry to bump myself. but is raid10 *ever* more redundant in
> btrfs-speak than raid1? I currently use raid1 but i know in mdadm
> speak raid10 means you can lose 2 drives assuming they aren't the
> "wrong ones", is it safe to sa
so am I to read that as if btrfs redundancy isn't really functional?
if i yank a member of my raid 1 out in live "prod" is it going to take
a dump on my data?
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Hugo Mills wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 01:00:05PM -0600, sys.syphus wrote:
>> oh, and sorry to bump
By asking the question this way, I don't think you understand how
Btrfs development works. But if you check out the git pull for 3.19
you'll see a bunch of patches that pretty much close the feature
parity (no pun intended) gap for raid56 and raid0,1,10. But it is an
rc, and still needs testing, an
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 12:00 PM, sys.syphus wrote:
> oh, and sorry to bump myself. but is raid10 *ever* more redundant in
> btrfs-speak than raid1? I currently use raid1 but i know in mdadm
> speak raid10 means you can lose 2 drives assuming they aren't the
> "wrong ones", is it safe to say with
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 02:25:14PM -0600, sys.syphus wrote:
> so am I to read that as if btrfs redundancy isn't really functional?
> if i yank a member of my raid 1 out in live "prod" is it going to take
> a dump on my data?
Eh? Where did that conclusion some from? I said nothing at all
about R
On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 8:12 PM, Phillip Susi wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On 12/23/2014 05:09 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> The timer in /sys is a kernel command timer, it's not a device
>> timer even though it's pointed at a block device. You need to
>> change that
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 12:00 PM, sys.syphus wrote:
>> oh, and sorry to bump myself. but is raid10 *ever* more redundant in
>> btrfs-speak than raid1? I currently use raid1 but i know in mdadm
>> speak raid10 means you can lose 2 drives assuming they aren't the
>> "wrong ones", is it safe to say
Original Message
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] btrfs: Enhance btrfs chunk allocation
algorithm to reduce ENOSPC caused by unbalanced data/metadata allocation.
From: David Sterba
To: Qu Wenruo
Date: 2014年12月29日 22:56
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 09:55:14AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Original Message
Subject: Re: 3.16.3: fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c:1410
btrfs_assert_delayed_root_empty
From: Roman Mamedov
To: Marc MERLIN
Date: 2014年12月29日 04:00
On Sun, 28 Dec 2014 11:26:14 -0800
Marc MERLIN wrote:
Not sure if it's useful to anyone, but there you go. This
On Mon, 2014-12-29 at 17:07 +0100, David Sterba wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 03:22:53PM +0800, Gui Hecheng wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Gui Hecheng
> > Reviewed-by: Satoru Takeuchi
> > ---
> > changelog
> > v1->v2: s/\'E\'(EiB)/or \'E\'(EiB)/ as suggested by Satoru, thanks.
> > ---
> > Docu
Signed-off-by: Gui Hecheng
Reviewed-by: Satoru Takeuchi
---
changelog
v1->v2:
s/\'E\'(EiB)/or \'E\'(EiB)/ as suggested by Satoru, thanks.
v2->v3:
replace confusing format 'K'(KiB) etc. Thanks, David.
---
Documentation/btrfs-filesystem.txt | 5 +++--
Martin,
I agree as of now it's better to refer mkfs. manpage and use it
appropriately.
I will write separate email to fsdevel mailing list.
Thank you,
Regards,
Ankur
-Original Message-
From: Martin Steigerwald [mailto:mar...@lichtvoll.de]
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 3:48 PM
To: Anku
35 matches
Mail list logo
