On 05/28/2016 11:04 AM, Liu Bo wrote:
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 01:03:15PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Introduce a new function, setup_temp_super(), to setup temporary super
for make_btrfs_v2().
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo
Signed-off-by: David Sterba
---
utils.c | 117 ++
On 05/28/2016 11:30 AM, Liu Bo wrote:
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 01:03:31PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Before this patch, btrfs-convert only rely on large enough initial
system/metadata chunk size to ensure no newer system/meta chunk will be
created.
But that's not safe enough. So add two new membe
On 05/28/2016 11:16 AM, Liu Bo wrote:
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 01:03:26PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Introduce new function, migrate_reserved_ranges() to migrate used fs
data in btrfs reserved space.
Unlike old implement, which will need to relocate all the complicated
csum and reference relocati
On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 01:14:13PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
On 05/27/2016 11:42 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
I'm getting errors from btrfs fi show -d, after the very last round of
device replaces. A little extra debugging:
bytenr mismatch, want=4332716032, have=0
ERROR: cannot read chunk root
ERRO
On 2016-05-25 21:03, Duncan wrote:
> Dmitry Katsubo posted on Wed, 25 May 2016 16:45:41 +0200 as excerpted:
>> * Would be nice if 'btrfs scrub status' shows estimated finishing time
>> (ETA) and throughput (in Mb/s).
>
> That might not be so easy to implement. (Caveat, I'm not a dev, just a
> bt
Situation: A six disk RAID5/6 array with a completely failed disk. The
failed disk is removed and an identical replacement drive is plugged
in.
Here I have two options for replacing the disk, assuming the old drive
is device 6 in the superblock and the replacement disk is /dev/sda.
'btrfs replace
On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Peter Becker wrote:
> Thanks for the clarification. I've probably overlooked this.
>
> But should "resize max" does not do what you expect instead of falling
> back on an "invisible" 1?
How does it know what the user expects?
I think the issue is not with the res
On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 12:23 AM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> 20.05.2016 20:59, Austin S. Hemmelgarn пишет:
>> On 2016-05-20 13:02, Ferry Toth wrote:
>>> We have 4 1TB drives in MBR, 1MB free at the beginning, grub on all 4,
>>> then 8GB swap, then all the rest btrfs (no LVM used). The 4 btrfs
>>> p
On 05/29/16 19:53, Chris Murphy wrote:
> But I'm skeptical of bcache using a hidden area historically for the
> bootloader, to put its device metadata. I didn't realize that was the
> case. Imagine if LVM were to stuff metadata into the MBR gap, or
> mdadm. Egads.
On the matter of bcache in genera
2016-05-29 19:11 GMT+02:00 Chris Murphy :
> On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Peter Becker wrote:
>> Thanks for the clarification. I've probably overlooked this.
>>
>> But should "resize max" does not do what you expect instead of falling
>> back on an "invisible" 1?
>
> How does it know what the u
On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Peter Becker wrote:
> 2016-05-29 19:11 GMT+02:00 Chris Murphy :
>> On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Peter Becker wrote:
>>> Thanks for the clarification. I've probably overlooked this.
>>>
>>> But should "resize max" does not do what you expect instead of falling
On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Holger Hoffstätte
wrote:
> On 05/29/16 19:53, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> But I'm skeptical of bcache using a hidden area historically for the
>> bootloader, to put its device metadata. I didn't realize that was the
>> case. Imagine if LVM were to stuff metadata into t
Originally when the device is added to a seed FS, the mount point
converts to writeable. However there appears to be a regression
that in 4.6 the sprouted FS still remains read-only. Traced back
untill 3.8 and still there is regression.
Seed sprout btrfs feature is one of the unique feature of btr
Originally a seed FS becomes a writeable sprout FS after a
device is added to it, however as at 4.6 I don't see this
behavior anymore.
This, the above feature is quite unique to btrfs, and there
are some good future solutions on top it. So please preserve
this feature and here is a test case [1] w
btrfs_init_new_device() should put the FS back to RDONLY
if init fails in the seed_device context.
Further it adds the following clean up:
- fixes a bug_on to goto label error_trans:
- move btrfs_abort_transaction() label error_trans: and
- as there is no code to undo the btrfs_prepare_sprout()
On 2016/5/27 23:43, Josef Bacik wrote:
fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c b/fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c
index 5e6062c..05c9ef8 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c
@@ -3662,6 +366
Op Sun, 29 May 2016 12:33:06 -0600, schreef Chris Murphy:
> On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Holger Hoffstätte
> wrote:
>> On 05/29/16 19:53, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>> But I'm skeptical of bcache using a hidden area historically for the
>>> bootloader, to put its device metadata. I didn't realize
On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Anand Jain wrote:
> Originally a seed FS becomes a writeable sprout FS after a
> device is added to it, however as at 4.6 I don't see this
> behavior anymore.
I think the old behavior where it's possible to use -o remount,rw is
actually confusing.
Strictly speaki
Chris Johnson posted on Sun, 29 May 2016 09:33:49 -0700 as excerpted:
> Situation: A six disk RAID5/6 array with a completely failed disk. The
> failed disk is removed and an identical replacement drive is plugged in.
First of all, be aware (as you already will be if you're following the
list) t
With 4.5.5 the 'mount -o remount,rw' works like the wiki describes,
and is in my opinion contrary to the mount man page.
After the -o remount,rw following btrfs dev add VG/sprout, I get this partial:
# lsblk -o +UUID
NAME MAJ:MIN RM SIZE RO TYPE MOUNTPOINT UUID
│ └─VG-thin
On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 8:03 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> # lsblk -o +UUID
> NAME MAJ:MIN RM SIZE RO TYPE MOUNTPOINT UUID
> loop07:0010G 0 loop /mnt/0
> 63288b0c-9216-4f11-aed4-cc054ae90e07
> loop17:1010G 0 loop
> 63288b0c-9216-4f11-aed4-cc054ae90e07
In order to confirm that btrfsck supports to check a variety of
refs, add the
following cases:
* keyed_block_ref
* keyed_data_ref
* shared_block_ref
* shared_data_ref
* no_inline_ref (a extent item without inline ref)
* no_skinny_ref
Signed-off-by: Lu Fengqi
---
In order to btrfsck on the restore
22 matches
Mail list logo
