Please don't merge this patchset.
As the there is some naming undecided recently.
The abbreviation 'dedup' may be changed to 'dedupe'.
I'll update them when all related parts is settled down.
Thanks,
Qu
Qu Wenruo wrote on 2016/03/09 16:33 +0800:
Since we are push btrfs in-band de-duplication
From: Anand Jain
This patch introduces new option for the command
btrfs device delete [..]
In a user reported issue on a 3-disk-RAID1, one disk failed with its
SB unreadable. Now with this patch user will have a choice to delete
the device using devid.
The other method we could do, is to
Hi David,
Just like the kernel naming change, does btrfs-progs also need to change
'dedup' to 'dedupe'?
For kernel part, I have changed all 'dedup' to 'dedupe', including
filename (dedup.c -> dedupe.c), function name and even comment.
I'm a little curious about should btrfs-progs also keep
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 05:01:12PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> Just like the kernel naming change, does btrfs-progs also need to change
> 'dedup' to 'dedupe'?
Yes please.
> For kernel part, I have changed all 'dedup' to 'dedupe', including
> filename (dedup.c -> dedupe.c), function
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 01:05:39AM +, Duncan wrote:
> But according to the mkfs.btrfs manpage, the detection is based on
> /sys/block/DEV/queue/rotational (with DEV substituted appropriately), and
> various layers got support for correctly passing that thru at various
> times, some before bt
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 09:27:22AM +0900, Satoru Takeuchi wrote:
> * actual result
>
> ===
> # ./btrfs device ready /dev/sdb foo
> #
> ===
>
> * expecting result
>
> ===
> # ./
r 14 11:08:36 fan root: Unallocated:
Mar 14 11:08:36 fan root:/dev/mapper/fanbtr#011 101.97GiB
Mar 14 11:08:36 fan mh: END btrfs-balance script
Full log is at http://q.bofh.de/~mh/stuff/20160314-fanbtr-btrfs-syslog
The log was taken with enospc_debug active on the f
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 09:15:42AM +0900, Satoru Takeuchi wrote:
> The number of arguments which is allowed to pass became wrong
> from the following commit.
>
> commit 176aeca9a148c5e29de0 ("btrfs-progs: add getopt stubs where needed")
>
> * actual result
>
> =
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 09:12:36AM +0900, Satoru Takeuchi wrote:
> --- a/cmds-property.c
> +++ b/cmds-property.c
> @@ -379,9 +379,7 @@ static int cmd_property_get(int argc, char **argv)
> char *name = NULL;
> int types = 0;
>
> - clean_args_no_options(argc, argv, cmd_property_get_u
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 09:02:34AM +0900, Satoru Takeuchi wrote:
> * actual result
>
> ==
> # ./btrfs device usage -- -m /btrfs
>
> /dev/sdf1, ID: 1
> Device size: 95367.41MiB
> Data,single: 2056.00MiB
> Metadata,DUP:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 02:24:08PM +0100, Alexander Fougner wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Fougner
Applied, thanks.
--
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.org/maj
I was trying to find a definitive information about this, but could not ...
AFAIK, defrag breaks CoW and send/receive -p. I was wondering whether
deduplication would break it too, i.e. if doing a send/receive to
transfer a subvolume, running dedup, and then using said subvolum as a
parent with se
On 03/14/16 13:07, Marc Haber wrote:
>> And btrfs balance runs into the same ENOSPC issues as the old one:
>
> ... with Qu's patch, I now get a reproducible kernel trace:
That is interesting and useful. Sorry if this was asked before, but
did you ever try to clear the free-space cache via -o cl
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 04:31:49PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
> From: Anand Jain
>
> This patch introduces new option for the command
>
> btrfs device delete [..]
>
> In a user reported issue on a 3-disk-RAID1, one disk failed with its
> SB unreadable. Now with this patch user will have a ch
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 02:54:05PM -0800, Ashish Samant wrote:
> Dont print warning for ENOSPC error unless ENOSPC_DEBUG is enabled. Use
> btrfs_debug if it is enabled.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ashish Samant
>
> V3:
> - Use btrfs_debug() instead of WARN() per David Sterba's comment.
> V2:
> - Add a
Device size:#011#011 200.00GiB
> Mar 14 11:08:36 fan root: Device allocated:#011#011 98.03GiB
> Mar 14 11:08:36 fan root: Device unallocated:#011#011 101.97GiB
> Mar 14 11:08:36 fan root: Device missing:#011#011 0.00B
> Mar 14 11:08:36 fan root: Used:#011#011#01
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 03:56:47PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Please don't merge this patchset.
>
> As the there is some naming undecided recently.
>
> The abbreviation 'dedup' may be changed to 'dedupe'.
> I'll update them when all related parts is settled down.
There's already a 'dedupe' group
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 05:40:56PM +0100, David Sterba wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 11:09:29AM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
> >
> > > Please send any followup changes on top of the current devel patch.
> >
> > I kind of missed this point at the wiki.
> > --
> > The git repositories on k
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 08:48:44PM +0300, Yauhen Kharuzhy wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 05:40:56PM +0100, David Sterba wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 11:09:29AM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
> > >
> > > > Please send any followup changes on top of the current devel patch.
> > >
> > > I kind o
Hi Henk,
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 02:46:54PM +0100, Henk Slager wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Marc Haber
> wrote:
> > Mar 14 10:23:49 fan mh: BEGIN btrfs-balance script
> > Mar 14 10:23:49 fan mh: btrfs fi df /
> > Mar 14 10:23:49 fan root: Data, single: total=79.00GiB, used=78.42GiB
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 01:48:18PM +0100, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
> On 03/14/16 13:07, Marc Haber wrote:
> >> And btrfs balance runs into the same ENOSPC issues as the old one:
> >
> > ... with Qu's patch, I now get a reproducible kernel trace:
>
>
>
> That is interesting and useful. Sorry if
>> BTW, I restored and mounted your 20160307-fanbtr-image:
>>
>> [266169.207952] BTRFS: device label fanbtr devid 1 transid 22215732
>> /dev/loop0
>> [266203.734804] BTRFS info (device loop0): disk space caching is enabled
>> [266203.734806] BTRFS: has skinny extents
>> [266204.022175] BTRFS: chec
I'm a little mystified how btrfs check reports a problem with the
superblock, and yet this filesystem can still be mounted and used? If
it mounts rw then resize is possible but why would it be wrong in the
first place?
Chris Murphy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linu
>pete posted on Sat, 12 Mar 2016 13:01:17 + as excerpted:
>> I hope this message stays within the thread on the list. I had email
>> problems and ended up hacking around with sendmail & grabbing the
>> message id off of the web based group archives.
>Looks like it should have as the reply-to
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 10:59 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> I'm a little mystified how btrfs check reports a problem with the
> superblock, and yet this filesystem can still be mounted and used? If
> it mounts rw then resize is possible but why would it be wrong in the
> first place?
Yes you are righ
Signed-off-by: Satoru Takeuchi
---
This patch can be applied to 4.5
---
fs/btrfs/ioctl.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c b/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
index 48aee98..b474e32 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
@@ -123,10 +123,10 @@
Some update since last time (few weeks ago).
All filesystems are mounted with noatime, I've also added mounting
optimization - so there is no problem with remounting filesystem every
time, it is done only once.
Remounting optimization helped by reducing 1 complete snapshot +
send/receive cyc
Sylvain Joyeux posted on Mon, 14 Mar 2016 09:39:51 -0300 as excerpted:
> I was trying to find a definitive information about this, but could not
> ...
>
> AFAIK, defrag breaks CoW and send/receive -p. I was wondering whether
> deduplication would break it too, i.e. if doing a send/receive to
> t
Darrick J. Wong wrote on 2016/03/14 10:24 -0700:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 03:56:47PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Please don't merge this patchset.
As the there is some naming undecided recently.
The abbreviation 'dedup' may be changed to 'dedupe'.
I'll update them when all related parts is settle
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 10:24:30AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 03:56:47PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> > Please don't merge this patchset.
> >
> > As the there is some naming undecided recently.
> >
> > The abbreviation 'dedup' may be changed to 'dedupe'.
> > I'll update
On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 04:27:59PM -0800, Liu Bo wrote:
> This is to test if COW enabled btrfs can end up with single 4k extents
> when doing subpagesize buffered writes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Liu Bo
> ---
> +_scratch_mkfs >> $seqres.full 2>&1
> +_scratch_mount
> +
> +default_expire=`cat /proc/
On Sat, Mar 05, 2016 at 10:25:08AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> I'm not sure xfstests is the right fit, as it does not test a file
> system, but rather block devices.
>
> If people think it should go into xfstests we should at least not
> add it to the default group, but just to a new bdev gr
32 matches
Mail list logo
