On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 12:12:45 +0200, Lauri Võsandi wrote:
> This patch adds command-line flag -p to btrfs receive
> which makes it possible to disable automatic parent
> search for incremental snapshots and use explicitly
> specified path instead.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lauri Võsandi
> ---
> cmds-rec
The patch renames btrfs_dev_replace_find_srcdev() to
btrfs_find_device_by_user_input() so that it can be used
by btrfs_rm_device() as well in the next patches.
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain
---
fs/btrfs/dev-replace.c | 24 +---
fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 19 +++
fs/
Kernel patch of device delete by devid.
Now also includes possible code optimization.
Some of the codes are common between delete device and
replace device. This patch will use functions to reuse
those codes, mainly the get btrfs_device structure of
the source device, and scratch the source device
This patch updates the btrfs_scratch_superblock(), (which is used
by the replace device thread), with those fixes from the
scratch superblock code section of btrfs_rm_device(). The fixes are:
Scratch all copies of superblock
Notify kobject that superblock has been changed
Update time on the d
btrfs_rm_device() has a section of the code which can be replaced
btrfs_find_device_by_user_input()
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain
---
fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 84 --
1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 65 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/f
btrfs_rm_device() has a section of the code to check for min number
of the devices required by various group profile. This patch move
that part of the code in the function __check_raid_min_devices()
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain
---
fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 78 ++-
This introduces BTRFS_IOC_RM_DEV_V2, which can accept devid as
an argument to delete the device.
Current only choice to is to pass device path for the device delete
cli, but if btrfs is unable to read device SB, then cli fails. And
user won't be able to delete the device.
With this patch now the
This uses a chunk of code from btrfs_read_dev_super() and creates
a function called btrfs_read_dev_one_super() so that next patch
can use it for scratch superblock.
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain
---
fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 54 ++
fs/btrfs/disk-io.h |
use btrfs specific error code BTRFS_ERROR_DEV_MISSING_NOT_FOUND instead of
-ENOENT.
Next this removes the logging when user specifies "missing" and we don't find
it in the kernel device list. logging are for system events not for user input
errors.
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain
---
fs/btrfs/volume
With the previous patches now the btrfs_scratch_superblock()
is ready to be used in btrfs_rm_device() so use it.
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain
---
fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 69 --
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 64 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/v
On Monday, April 27, 2015 02:11:05 AM Duncan wrote:
> Wolfgang Mader posted on Sun, 26 Apr 2015 20:39:34 +0200 as excerpted:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I have a raid10 with one device missing. I would like to use btrfs
> > replace to replace it. However, I am unsure on how to obtain the devid
> > of the m
On Monday, April 27, 2015 12:48:07 PM Anand Jain wrote:
> On 04/27/2015 02:39 AM, Wolfgang Mader wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I have a raid10 with one device missing. I would like to use btrfs replace
> > to replace it. However, I am unsure on how to obtain the devid of the
> > missing device. Having
Hi,
> This won't work if you receive more than one snapshot, each one derived
> from the previous one ("btrfs send -e snap1 snap2 snap3 snap4"). You
> would always use the first one as the parent, not the predecessor.
> That's implemented differently for the -p option in
> git://git.kernel.org/pub
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 24.04.2015 um 16:08 schrieb Lentes, Bernd:
> Hi,
>
> it should be just a small problem, but it is one. How can I rollback t
o a snapshot of my root filesystem ?
> Googeling, I found a lot of solutions, each different.
> I finally choosed this one:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 08:25:58AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> Original Message
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] btrfs: Fix superblock csum type check.
> From: David Sterba
> To: Qu Wenruo
> Date: 2015年04月24日 23:05
>
> > On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 09:12:40AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wro
On 2015-04-24 10:26, Lentes, Bernd wrote:
Hi,
it should be just a small problem, but it is one. How can I rollback to a
snapshot of my root filesystem ?
Googeling, I found a lot of solutions, each different.
I finally choosed this one:
https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/UseCases#I_want_to
Hi,
I would like to know if btrfs file system is created on LVM2 logical
volumes, does freeze and thaw operations takes place for btrfs to make
file system consistent??
If not is there a way (ioctl etc..) to run btrfs freeze/thaw before and
after creating LVM2 snapshot of a btrfs file system?
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 12:05:28PM +, sri wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to know if btrfs file system is created on LVM2 logical
> volumes, does freeze and thaw operations takes place for btrfs to make
> file system consistent??
No, because the filesystem is *always* consistent, because o
I have a BTRFS which has errors. After starting a scrub, and checking status
once, scrub will report it was aborted but still runs to completion.
fatdrive ~ # btrfs scrub status /mnt/data
scrub status for f591ac13-1a69-476d-bd30-346f87a491da
scrub started at Mon Apr 27 06:48:44 2015, runn
This may be by design since the driver is handling the errors. When the drive
is mounted with -o recovery, and then a scrub is performed, scrub will show no
errors.
fatdrive ~ # dmesg | tail
[35348.694291] repair_io_failure: 4 callbacks suppressed
[35348.694297] BTRFS: read error corrected: ino
Hello,
I have a 3 disks file system configured in RAID1, created with Ubuntu
13.10 (if I recall correctly). Last friday I upgraded my system from
Ubuntu 14.10 (kernel 3.16.0) to 15.04 (kernel 3.19.0). Then I started
to notice some malfunctions (errors on cron scripts, my time machine
asking to perf
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 03:41:33PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> Are you sure about NFSv4.2?
>
> I see that it *can* report holes, but is there any guarantee that if you
> create a new file and write only the 5th block, then READ_PLUS will reliably
> report that the first 4 block are holes??
FYI, I'm
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 7:22 PM, arnaud gaboury
wrote:
> Archlinux host
>
> 1- created 3 btrfs subvol on /dev/sdb1 (SSD). The goal is to manage
> snapshots easily.
> no nested subvol.
> --
> # btrfs subvolume list .
> ID 266 gen 39 top level 5 path rootvol
>
Hugo Mills carfax.org.uk> writes:
>
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 12:05:28PM +, sri wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I would like to know if btrfs file system is created on LVM2 logical
> > volumes, does freeze and thaw operations takes place for btrfs to
make
> > file system consistent??
>
>No,
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 02:41:41PM +, sri wrote:
> Hugo Mills carfax.org.uk> writes:
>
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 12:05:28PM +, sri wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I would like to know if btrfs file system is created on LVM2 logical
> > > volumes, does freeze and thaw operations take
On 27.04.2015 o 14:15, Hugo Mills wrote:
HOWEVER, you shouldn't take LVM snapshots of a btrfs filesystem AT ALL
I'd like to add, that generally when working with LVM and BTRFS, it's
probably a good idea to always use "device=" mount option to make it
scan only specified devices instead of all
On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 14:55:49 +
Hugo Mills wrote:
> > This is strange considering that I wanted a consistent snapshot of
> > entire btrfs filesystem at volume level.
> >
> > Is there a way to achive this? or btrfs just cannot provide?
>
>No, there's no way to manage it with the current
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 10:34:42PM +0500, Roman Mamedov wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 14:55:49 +
> Hugo Mills wrote:
>
> > > This is strange considering that I wanted a consistent snapshot of
> > > entire btrfs filesystem at volume level.
> > >
> > > Is there a way to achive this? or btrfs j
Hugo Mills carfax.org.uk> writes:
>
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 10:34:42PM +0500, Roman Mamedov wrote:
> > On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 14:55:49 +
> > Hugo Mills carfax.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > > This is strange considering that I wanted a consistent snapshot
of
> > > > entire btrfs filesystem at v
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 27/04/15 14:39, Ermanno Baschiera wrote:
> Hello, I have a 3 disks file system configured in RAID1, created
> with Ubuntu 13.10 (if I recall correctly). Last friday I upgraded
> my system from Ubuntu 14.10 (kernel 3.16.0) to 15.04 (kernel
> 3.19.0).
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Forrest Liu wrote:
> btrfs_release_extent_buffer_page() can't handle dummy extent that
> allocated by btrfs_clone_extent_buffer() properly. That is because
> reference count of pages that allocated by btrfs_clone_extent_buffer()
> was 2, 1 by alloc_page(), and anoth
On 4/27/2015 11:23 AM, lauri wrote:
Hi,
This won't work if you receive more than one snapshot, each one derived
from the previous one ("btrfs send -e snap1 snap2 snap3 snap4"). You
would always use the first one as the parent, not the predecessor.
That's implemented differently for the -p optio
Original Message
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] btrfs: Fix superblock csum type check.
From: David Sterba
To: Qu Wenruo
Date: 2015年04月27日 18:59
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 08:25:58AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Original Message
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] btrfs:
Old csum type check is wrong and can't catch csum_type 1(not supported).
Fix it to avoid hostile 0 division.
Reported-by: Lukas Lueg
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo
---
Changelog:
v2:
Fix existing codes other than adding new one.
v3:
Just remove the tailing in btrfs_csum_sizes array.
---
fs/btr
Anthony Plack posted on Mon, 27 Apr 2015 07:51:14 -0500 as excerpted:
> This may be by design since the driver is handling the errors. When the
> drive is mounted with -o recovery, and then a scrub is performed, scrub
> will show no errors.
>
> fatdrive ~ # dmesg | tail
> [35348.694291] repair_i
I have a large-ish filesystem, and it's starting to cause problems
after some SATA errors.
After scrubs stalled, and reading of people with similar errors, I
downloaded the latest btrfs-progs and attempted a btrfsck - is
segfaults. This is ubuntu 14.04, running the mainline kernel 3.19.5.
I down
Original Message
Subject: Filesystem with Errors, Unusual behavior
From: Joshua Schmidlkofer
To:
Date: 2015年04月28日 14:11
I have a large-ish filesystem, and it's starting to cause problems
after some SATA errors.
After scrubs stalled, and reading of people with similar err
Ermanno Baschiera posted on Mon, 27 Apr 2015 15:39:14 +0200 as excerpted:
> I have a 3 disks file system configured in RAID1, created with Ubuntu
> 13.10 (if I recall correctly). Last friday I upgraded my system from
> Ubuntu 14.10 (kernel 3.16.0) to 15.04 (kernel 3.19.0). Then I started to
> noti
From: Kent Overstreet
Btrfs has been doing bio splitting from btrfs_map_bio(), by checking
device limits as well as calling ->merge_bvec_fn() etc. That is not
necessary any more, because generic_make_request() is now able to
handle arbitrarily sized bios. So clean up unnecessary code paths.
Cc:
39 matches
Mail list logo
