[PATCH] fstests: btrfs, test directory fsync after deleting snapshots

From: Filipe Manana Test that if we fsync a directory that had a snapshot entry in it that was deleted and crash, the next time we mount the filesystem, the log replay procedure will not fail and the snapshot is not present anymore. This issue is fixed by the following patch

Re: BTRFS RAM requirements, RAID 6 stability/write holes and expansion questions

On 2016-02-09 15:39, Chris Murphy wrote: On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 12:36 PM, Mackenzie Meyer wrote: RAID 6 write holes? I don't even understand the nature of the write hole on Btrfs. If modification is still always COW, then either an fs block, a strip, or whole stripe

[PATCH] Btrfs: fix unreplayable log after snapshot delete + parent dir fsync

From: Filipe Manana If we delete a snapshot, fsync its parent directory and crash/power fail before the next transaction commit, on the next mount when we attempt to replay the log tree of the root containing the parent directory we will fail and prevent the filesystem from

Re: RAID5 Unable to remove Failing HD

Arnand, thanks for the tip. What kernels are these meant for? I am not able to apply these cleanly to the kernels i have tried. Or is there a kernel with these incorporated? I have tried rebooting without the disk attached and am unable to mount the partition. Complaining about bad tree and

Re: btrfs-progs 4.4 re-balance of RAID6 is very slow / limited to one cpu core?

http://fpaste.org/320720/45511028/ What is rb_next? See if you can explode that out and find out more about why there's so much time going on with that. I see that rb_next gets used for lots of things, including btrfs. In mine, rb_next is less than 1% overhead, but for you it's the top item.

Re: [PATCH] fstests: btrfs, test directory fsync after deleting snapshots

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 01:32:51PM +, fdman...@kernel.org wrote: > From: Filipe Manana > > Test that if we fsync a directory that had a snapshot entry in it that > was deleted and crash, the next time we mount the filesystem, the log > replay procedure will not fail and

Re: [PATCH 1/2] btrfs-progs: copy functionality of btrfs-debug-tree to inspect-internal subcommand

On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 05:12:08PM +0100, Alexander Fougner wrote: > The long-term plan is to merge the features of standalone tools > into the btrfs binary, reducing the number of shipped binaries. > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Fougner Applied, thanks. -- To unsubscribe

Re: BTRFS RAM requirements, RAID 6 stability/write holes and expansion questions

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 6:57 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > It's an issue of torn writes in this case, not of atomicity of BTRFS. Disks > can't atomically write more than sector size chunks, which means that almost > all BTRFS filesystems are doing writes that disks

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: fix unreplayable log after snapshot delete + parent dir fsync

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 01:30:48PM +, fdman...@kernel.org wrote: > From: Filipe Manana > > If we delete a snapshot, fsync its parent directory and crash/power fail > before the next transaction commit, on the next mount when we attempt to > replay the log tree of the root

[LFS/MM TOPIC] fs reflink issues, fs online scrub/check, etc

[resend, email exploded, sorry...] Hi, I want to discuss a few FS related topics that I haven't already seen on the mailing lists: * Shared pagecache pages for reflinked files (and by extension making dax work with reflink on xfs) * Providing a simple interface for scrubbing filesystem

Re: btrfs-progs 4.4 re-balance of RAID6 is very slow / limited to one cpu core?

Sometimes when things are really slow or even hung up with Btrfs, yet there's no blocked task being reported, a dev has asked for sysrq+t, so that might also be something to issue while the slow balance is happening, and then dmesg to grab the result. The thing is, I have no idea how to read the

Re: BTRFS RAM requirements, RAID 6 stability/write holes and expansion questions

On 2016-02-10 14:06, Chris Murphy wrote: On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 6:57 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: It's an issue of torn writes in this case, not of atomicity of BTRFS. Disks can't atomically write more than sector size chunks, which means that almost all BTRFS

Re: task btrfs-cleaner:770 blocked for more than 120 seconds.

2016-02-03 9:48 GMT+05:00 Chris Murphy : > Mike: From your attachment, looks like you rebooted. So do this: > > echo 1 > /proc/sys/kernel/sysrq > Reproduce the problem where you get blocked task messages in dmesg > echo w > /proc/sysrq-trigger > journalctl -k >

Re: task btrfs-cleaner:770 blocked for more than 120 seconds.

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Михаил Гаврилов wrote: > > Here full log: http://btrfs.sy24.ru/kernel-sysrqw-btrfscleaner770blocked-2.txt > > I am so sorry if this log is useless. Looks good to me. The blocked task happens out of no where with nothing reported

Re: RAID5 Unable to remove Failing HD

On 02/11/2016 12:58 AM, Rene Castberg wrote: Arnand, thanks for the tip. What kernels are these meant for? I am not able to apply these cleanly to the kernels i have tried. Or is there a kernel with these incorporated? As I am trying again, they apply nice on v4.4-rc8 (last commit

Re: btrfs-image failure (btrfs-tools 4.4)

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 09:03:07AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > If the fs is small enough, would you please do a btrfs-image dump? > That would help a lot to locate the direct cause. I started making a dump, image was growing past 3GB, and then it failed and the image got deleted: gargamel:~#

Re: [RFC PATCH V11 01/21] Btrfs: subpagesize-blocksize: Fix whole page read.

On Wednesday 10 Feb 2016 11:39:25 David Sterba wrote: > > The explanations and the table would be good in the changelog and as > comments. I think we'll need to consider the smaller blocks more often > so some examples and locking rules would be useful, eg. documented in > this file. David, I

Re: btrfs-image failure (btrfs-tools 4.4)

Marc MERLIN wrote on 2016/02/10 22:31 -0800: On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 09:03:07AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: If the fs is small enough, would you please do a btrfs-image dump? That would help a lot to locate the direct cause. I started making a dump, image was growing past 3GB, and then it

[PULL 4.6] Preparatory work for subpage-blocksize patchset

Hi, the preparatory patchset has been split from the core subpage-blocksize so we can merge it in smaller pieces. It has been pending for a long time and IMHO should be merged so we can focus on the core patchset. The branch contains the unmodified v10, partial reviews from Josef and Liu Bo,

Re: BTRFS RAM requirements, RAID 6 stability/write holes and expansion questions

On 05/02/16 20:36, Mackenzie Meyer wrote: RAID 6 stability? I'll say more: currently, btrfs is in a state of flux where if you don't have a very recent kernel that's the first recommendation you're going to receive in case of problems. This means going out of stable packages in most distros.

Re: [RFC PATCH V11 01/21] Btrfs: subpagesize-blocksize: Fix whole page read.

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 03:15:01PM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote: > > private->io_lock is not acquired here but not in below. > > > > IIUC, this can be protected by EXTENT_LOCKED. > > > > private->io_lock plays the same role as BH_Uptodate_Lock (see > end_buffer_async_read()) i.e. without the

Re: [RFC PATCH V11 01/21] Btrfs: subpagesize-blocksize: Fix whole page read.

On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 04:37:48PM +0800, Liu Bo wrote: ... > > | - clear BLK_STATE_IO| - clear BLK_STATE_IO| | > > | - page_read_complete| - page_read_complete| | > > | - returns true| - returns true| | > > | -

Re: [GIT PULL] Fujitsu for 4.5

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 05:28:12PM +0800, Zhao Lei wrote: > This is collection of some bug fix, enhance and cleanup from fujitsu > against btrfs for v4.5, mainly for reada, plus some small fix and cleanup > for scrub and raid56. > > All patchs are in btrfs-maillist, rebased on top of

Re: RAID5 Unable to remove Failing HD

Rene, Thanks for the report. Fixes are in the following patch sets concern1: Btrfs to fail/offline a device for write/flush error: [PATCH 00/15] btrfs: Hot spare and Auto replace concern2: User should be able to delete a device when device has failed: [PATCH 0/7] Introduce device

Re: btrfs-progs 4.4 re-balance of RAID6 is very slow / limited to one cpu core?

Hey btrfs-folks, I did a bit of digging using "perf": 1) * "perf stat -B -p 3933 sleep 60" * "perf stat -e 'btrfs:*' -a sleep 60" -> http://fpaste.org/320718/10016145/ 2) * perf record -e block:block_rq_issue -ag" for about 30 seconds: -> http://fpaste.org/320719/51101751/raw/ 3) *

письмо от Екатерины

Здравствуйте. Так же как Вы видите это сообщение, смогут такие же люди увидеть Ваше письмо. Цены от 1500. -- С уважением, менеджер Екатерина. Сот.: 7961136 3521 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org

Business Partnership

Hello, I am Mr. LAURENT EYADEMA from Republic of Togo.please read the attached proposal. Thanks in anticipation of your urgent response, LAURENT EYADEMA proposal.docx Description: Binary data

Business Partnership

Hello, I am Mr. LAURENT EYADEMA from Republic of Togo.please read the attached proposal. Thanks in anticipation of your urgent response, LAURENT EYADEMA proposal.docx Description: Binary data