Hi,
I use btrfs for my /home drive. It's a separate drive with just a
single partition.
I upgraded to ubuntu 13.10 (beta) a few weeks ago, without any real
trouble. But I did have too many issues (not with the drive or btrfs,
though) so I decided to do a fresh install.
The new install failed a
On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 12:03:01 +0800, Wang Shilong wrote:
On 10/19/2013 12:32, Shilong Wang wrote:
2013/10/19, Stefan Behrens sbehr...@giantdisaster.de:
On 10/19/2013 06:17, Wang Shilong wrote:
From: Wang Shilong wangsl.f...@cn.fujitsu.com
Scrubing supers is not in a transaction context, when
Another approach could probably be to write a C program that writes
20GB to a file, then seeks to random places within it, writing chunks
of data within them.
I could probably whip up such a thing if the debuggers need it.
That would be very useful, I guess!
--
Tomasz Chmielewski
When we build btrfs on seeding disk, we simply add a disk to provide a RW disk
while seeding disk remains RO, as the disk that we're adding is the first rw
disk, we need to allocate new metadata chunk and system chunk on it for later
udpate use.
After all above is done, we don't need to relocate
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 01:53:47PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
On 10/21/13 10:44 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 07:13:33PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 11:41:38AM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
As of now btrfs filesystem show reads directly from
disks. So
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 09:21:47AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 01:53:47PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
That would be less productive approach as a whole.
I have sent out the fix for this. Kindly find it.
---
[PATCH 1/2] btrfs-progs: make get_btrfs_mount callable
lilofile posted on Mon, 21 Oct 2013 23:45:58 +0800 as excerpted:
hi:
since RAID 5/6 code merged into Btrfs from 2013.2, no update and
bug are found in maillist? is any development plan with btrfs raid5?
such as adjusting stripe width、 reconstruction？
compared to md raid5 what
shuo lv posted on Tue, 22 Oct 2013 10:30:06 +0800 as excerpted:
hi:
since RAID 5/6 code merged into Btrfs from 2013.2, no update and bug are
found in maillist? is any development plan with btrfs raid5? such as
adjusting stripe width、 reconstruction？
compared to md raid5 what is advantage in
This got changed to a double but all the callers still use a u64, which causes
us to segfault sometimes because of some weird C voodoo that I had to have
explained to me. Apparently because we're using a double the compiler will use
the floating point registers to hold our argument which ends up
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 01:53:22PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
@@ -386,7 +395,7 @@ static int btrfs_scan_kernel(void *search)
static const char * const cmd_show_usage[] = {
- btrfs filesystem show [options] [path|uuid],
+ btrfs filesystem show [options|path|uuid],
Options should stay
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 01:53:21PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
get_btrfs_mount is reusable function but it is printing
errors, this removes it. Here the parent function of
open_path_or_dev_mnt does print error msg on error.
Yeah, but then each caller should duplicate the is_block_device check to
On 10/21/13 5:19 PM, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
struct kobj_attribute implements the baseline attribute functionality
that can be used all over the place. We should export the ops associated
with it.
Signed-off-by: Jeff Mahoney je...@suse.com
---
lib/kobject.c |1 +
1 file changed, 1
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 01:27:44PM +, Duncan wrote:
since RAID 5/6 code merged into Btrfs from 2013.2, no update and
bug are found in maillist? is any development plan with btrfs raid5?
such as adjusting stripe width、 reconstruction？
compared to md raid5 what is
On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 17:46:19 +0200
David Sterba dste...@suse.cz wrote:
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 02:50:25AM +0900, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
I'm getting these every few seconds when running scrub - expected?
The system probably locked up again due to the corrupted data. Looking
at the
Btrfs has always had these filler extent data items for holes in inodes. This
has made somethings very easy, like logging hole punches and sending hole
punches. However for large holey files these extent data items are pure
overhead. So add an incompatible feature to no longer add hole extents
This adds the flag to ctree.h, adds the feature option to mkfs to turn it on and
fixes fsck so it doesn't complain about missing hole extents in files when this
flag is set.
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik jba...@fusionio.com
---
cmds-check.c | 14 --
ctree.h | 5 +++--
mkfs.c
Somewhere among the updates 'btrfs fi show LABEL' stopped working and
xfstests/btrfs/006 fails. I did not know that this functionality exists so I
haven't paid attention to it during reviews.
btrfs/006 5s ...[18:10:35] [18:10:40] - output mismatch (see
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 09:21:47AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
Did you test these? Because they aren't working for me, so I think a revert
is
the only solution. Thanks,
The impact of the failing test is imho not that big to justify a full
revert from integration branch (were it in master,
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 12:27:21AM +0100, Filipe David Manana wrote:
It is a separate change that makes your patch obsolete.
Except the part of making the hash value depend on both object id and
root id, no?
I've read the patch again, yes, case 1 makes sense.
david
--
To unsubscribe from
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 11:33:56AM +0100, Phil Davis wrote:
The reason I think btrfs send is leaking open files is if you watch
/proc/sys/fs/file-nr you see the
number of open files increasing but if you kill the btrfs send
process then the open
files count reduces back down. In fact
On Oct 22, 2013, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
This is because there's a hole in the recovery process in case of a
lost device, making it dangerous to use except for the pure test-case.
It's not just that; any I/O error in raid56 chunks will trigger a BUG
and make the filesystem unusable
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 06:22:49PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 11:33:56AM +0100, Phil Davis wrote:
The reason I think btrfs send is leaking open files is if you watch
/proc/sys/fs/file-nr you see the
number of open files increasing but if you kill the btrfs send
On 2013/10/22 07:18 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
... and
it is surely an improvement over the current state of raid56 in btrfs,
so it might be a good idea to put it in.
I suspect the issue is that, while it sortof works, we don't really want
to push people to use it half-baked. This is reassuring
Dear list,
I've been trying to recover a 2TB single disk btrfs from a good few days
ago as already commented on the list. btrfsck complained of an error in
the extents and so I tried:
btrfsck --repair --init-extent-tree /dev/sdX
That was 8 days ago.
The btrfs process is still running at 100%
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 06:58:48PM +0100, Martin wrote:
Dear list,
I've been trying to recover a 2TB single disk btrfs from a good few days
ago as already commented on the list. btrfsck complained of an error in
the extents and so I tried:
btrfsck --repair --init-extent-tree /dev/sdX
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 05:19:40PM -0400, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
This patchset implements the stubbed-out sysfs interface for btrfs. Or
at least begins to do so.
We publish:
- Features supported by the file system implementation
- Features enabled on the file system, including features unknown
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:59:42PM +0800, Liu Bo wrote:
Data deduplication is a specialized data compression technique for eliminating
duplicate copies of repeating data.[1]
This patch set is also related to Content based storage in project ideas[2].
PATCH 1 is a hang fix with
Patch does not apply, already committed.
Thanks
--Rich
commit 859f127da2ee6d49faa41cafd4ed362aa526e4a0
Author: Josef Bacik jba...@fusionio.com
Date: Fri Jun 21 20:31:10 2013 +
xfstests: make fs for 274 larger
Btrfs will default to mixed block groups for 1 gigabyte file
systems
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 06:22:49PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 11:33:56AM +0100, Phil Davis wrote:
The reason I think btrfs send is leaking open files is if you watch
/proc/sys/fs/file-nr you see the
number of open files increasing but if you kill the btrfs send
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 02:39:06PM -0400, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
On 10/22/13 2:26 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 05:19:40PM -0400, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
This patchset implements the stubbed-out sysfs interface for btrfs. Or
at least begins to do so.
We publish:
- Features
This patch has been committed.
Thanks
--Rich
commit 122fba38be096e63d15e31d45372a1e344fa67b5
Author: Josef Bacik jba...@fusionio.com
Date: Fri Oct 18 18:26:23 2013 +
xfstests: fix btrfs/002 to not use the scratch dev pool
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:59:44PM +0800, Liu Bo wrote:
While removing a file with dedup extents, we could have a great number of
delayed refs pending to process, and these refs refer to droping
a ref of the extent, which is of BTRFS_DROP_DELAYED_REF type.
But in order to prevent an extent's
This has been committed.
Thanks
--Rich
commit 231e18b343d25d2112504f48addeb3ba6bd502c3
Author: Josef Bacik jba...@fusionio.com
Date: Fri Oct 18 18:26:26 2013 +
xfstests: btrfs/016: a hole punching send test
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
This has been committed.
Thanks
--Rich
commit 9d867b7e625690f03c73407923ae90caa7401abd
Author: Josef Bacik jba...@fusionio.com
Date: Fri Oct 18 18:26:29 2013 +
xfstests: btrfs/017: add a regression test for snapshot creation
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe
This has been committed.
Thanks
--Rich
commit 4896f63ef5dddcfe9759cbd369b5fd35084ac193
Author: Josef Bacik jba...@fusionio.com
Date: Mon Oct 21 15:53:16 2013 +
xfstests: wipefs new device in btrfs/003
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body
This has been committed.
Thanks
--Rich
commit 22ebe357198ea2519af6fd7e9082b9ac432631de
Author: Josef Bacik jba...@fusionio.com
Date: Mon Oct 21 16:13:53 2013 +
xfstests: stat the dev we're removing to make sure its' really gone
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
This has been committed.
Thanks
--Rich
commit 630a2890fff1e3f8f53e9a708d5e6fb2b5158566
Author: Josef Bacik jba...@fusionio.com
Date: Mon Oct 21 17:52:08 2013 +
xfstests: add regression test for kernel bz 60673 V2
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 06:22:49PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 11:33:56AM +0100, Phil Davis wrote:
The reason I think btrfs send is leaking open files is if you watch
/proc/sys/fs/file-nr you see the
number of open files increasing but if you kill the btrfs send
As I remember, there was no code to handle the look up by label.
it was a dummy option which did nothing.
So the below commit removed the option.
--
commit 50eaae45f2b47643f9a4c43ce72f7d6e06d4e323
Author: Anand Jain anand.j...@oracle.com
Date: Mon Jul 15 13:30:48 2013 +0800
On 10/22/13 10:33 PM, David Sterba wrote:
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 01:53:22PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
@@ -386,7 +395,7 @@ static int btrfs_scan_kernel(void *search)
static const char * const cmd_show_usage[] = {
- btrfs filesystem show [options] [path|uuid],
+ btrfs filesystem
On 10/22/13 10:43 PM, David Sterba wrote:
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 01:53:21PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
get_btrfs_mount is reusable function but it is printing
errors, this removes it. Here the parent function of
open_path_or_dev_mnt does print error msg on error.
Yeah, but then each caller
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 08:55:24PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:59:42PM +0800, Liu Bo wrote:
Data deduplication is a specialized data compression technique for
eliminating
duplicate copies of repeating data.[1]
This patch set is also related to
(Cced: David)
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:26:17AM +0800, Liu Bo wrote:
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 08:55:24PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:59:42PM +0800, Liu Bo wrote:
Data deduplication is a specialized data compression technique for
eliminating
Hi all,
Two questions:
First, I have a ton of lines in dmesg like
[ 123.664465] incomplete page read in btrfs with offset 2048 and length 2048
[ 123.835761] incomplete page read in btrfs with offset 512 and length 3584
What does this mean? I tried searching on Google but all I got was the
On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 18:20:19 +0200
David Sterba dste...@suse.cz wrote:
However, it's not possible to work with this system via SSH, because
these keep popping up few times every minute:
Probably only some of the files that get accessed during ssh login is
corrupted, but the scrub does not
45 matches
Mail list logo
