http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/mason/btrfs-progs.git
I can repeatedly get the following SEGV from running btrfs device stats on a
device node for an Ext3/4 filesystem. This happens with the version of the
code downloaded from the above GIT repository as well as with an older
On Sat, 10 Aug 2013, Chris Samuel ch...@csamuel.org wrote:
On Sun, 4 Aug 2013 03:37:22 PM Bart Noordervliet wrote:
a sufficiently up-to-date kernel and btrfs tool will provide the
'btrfs device stats' command, which should give you the info you want.
This is what it looks like:
Is the error relating to /dev/sr0 relevant to a call to /usr/bin/brtfs? Why
does it show the superfluous output?
% sudo btrfs fi show /dev/sda3
failed to open /dev/sr0: No medium found
Label: 'arch64' uuid: ab6f9133-a2ce-4c92-97ab-35cdc3c2d2a9
Total devices 1 FS bytes used 2.46GB
devid 1
Hi Linus
Please pull my for-linus branch:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git for-linus
These are assorted fixes, mostly from Josef nailing down xfstests runs.
Zach also has a long standing fix for problems with readdir wrapping
f_pos (or ctx-pos)
These patches
On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 07:19:27 PM Russell Coker wrote:
But what does generation_errs mean? I'm seeing some on one system.
Should I be concerned? If I write a Nagios check which ones should be
warnings and which ones errors?
All I know is that ioctl.h says:
BTRFS_DEV_STAT_GENERATION_ERRS,
On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 07:07:50 PM Russell Coker wrote:
I can repeatedly get the following SEGV from running btrfs device stats on
a device node for an Ext3/4 filesystem. This happens with the version of
the code downloaded from the above GIT repository as well as with an older
version.
On Aug 10, 2013, at 3:59 AM, Mike Audia mike...@gmx.com wrote:
Is the error relating to /dev/sr0 relevant to a call to /usr/bin/brtfs? Why
does it show the superfluous output?
% sudo btrfs fi show /dev/sda3
failed to open /dev/sr0: No medium found
I get this on Virtual Box VMs, also
On Aug 10, 2013, at 10:17 AM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
On Aug 10, 2013, at 9:42 AM, Mike Audia mike...@gmx.com wrote:
-s 16k
One answer is the drive doesn't expose a 16KB sector. It's basically lying
when it reports a 512 byte physical sector, but there isn't
On 8/9/13 9:04 PM, anand jain wrote:
btrfs fi show
Label: none uuid: e7aae9f0-1aa8-41f5-8fb6-d4d8f80cdb2c
Total devices 1 FS bytes used 28.00KiB
devid2 size 2.00GiB used 0.00 path /dev/sdc -- WRONG
devid1 size 2.00GiB used 20.00MiB path /dev/sdb
Ok,
