Michael Schuerig posted on Thu, 13 Mar 2014 20:12:44 +0100 as excerpted:
My backup use case is different from the what has been recently
discussed in another thread. I'm trying to guard against hardware
failure and other causes of destruction.
I have a btrfs raid1 filesystem spread over two
On Thu, 13 Mar 2014 09:39:02 PM Chris Murphy wrote:
smartctl -a or -x will tell you what SATA revision is in place. The queued
trim support is in SATA Rev 3.1. I'm not certain if this requires only the
drive to support that revision level, or both controller and drive.
Both I'd say as I
Hi Marc,
On Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:17:50 PM Marc MERLIN wrote:
I'm not sure I'm seeing this, which field is that?
I *think* you want smartctl -i instead, and look for the field that says
something like:
ATA Version is: ATA8-ACS, ACS-2 T13/2015-D revision 3
So if my understanding is correct
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:16:28PM +, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 03:42:13PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
Lets try this again. We can deadlock the box if we send on a box and try to
write onto the same fs with the app that is trying to listen to the send
pipe.
This is
On Friday 14 March 2014 06:42:27 Duncan wrote:
N-way-mirroring is actually my most hotly anticipated feature for a
different reason[2], but for you it would work like this:
1) Setup the 3-way (or 4-way if preferred) mirroring and balance to
ensured copies of all data on all devices.
2)
[...]
Theoretically, there should be someone on this mailing list capable of
answering this question, no?
Please feel invited to share your insights ;)
#Regards
On 01/03/14 02:21, Marcel Partap wrote:
Dear BTFRS devs,
I have a 1TB btrfs volume mounted read-only since two years because I
I have proposal for you.
--
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/majordomo-info.html
Michael Schuerig posted on Fri, 14 Mar 2014 09:56:20 +0100 as excerpted:
[Duncan posted...]
3) Disconnect the backup device(s). (Don't btrfs device delete, this
would remove the copy. Just disconnect.)
Hmm... Looking back at what I wrote...
Presumably either have the filesystem unmounted
Marc MERLIN posted on Thu, 13 Mar 2014 22:17:50 -0700 as excerpted:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 09:39:02PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Mar 13, 2014, at 8:11 PM, Marc MERLIN m...@merlins.org wrote:
On Sun, Mar 09, 2014 at 11:33:50AM +, Hugo Mills wrote:
discard is, except on the very
On 03/13/2014 10:05 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
On 03/13/2014 01:19 AM, Wang Shilong wrote:
We hit something like the following function call flows:
|-run_delalloc_range()
|-btrfs_join_transaction()
|-cow_file_range()
|-btrfs_join_transaction()
|-find_free_extent()
Lets try this again. We can deadlock the box if we send on a box and try to
write onto the same fs with the app that is trying to listen to the send pipe.
This is because the writer could get stuck waiting for a transaction commit
which is being blocked by the send. So fix this by making
Hi Josef,
Just ping this again.
Did you have any good ideas to rebuild extent tree if broken filesystem
is filled with snapshots.?
I was working on this recently, i was blocked that i can not verify if an extent
is *FULL BACKREF* mode or not. As a *FULL BACKREF* extent's refs can be 1
and more
Actually, an interesting concept would be to have the initial two drive
RAID 1 mirrored by 2 additional drives in 4-way configuration on a
second machine at a remote location on a private high speed network with
both machines up 24/7. In that case, if such a configuration would
work, either
On 03/14/2014 09:36 AM, Wang Shilong wrote:
Hi Josef,
Just ping this again.
Did you have any good ideas to rebuild extent tree if broken
filesystem is filled with snapshots.?
I was working on this recently, i was blocked that i can not verify
if an extent is *FULL BACKREF* mode or not.
George Mitchell posted on Fri, 14 Mar 2014 06:46:19 -0700 as excerpted:
Actually, an interesting concept would be to have the initial two drive
RAID 1 mirrored by 2 additional drives in 4-way configuration on a
second machine at a remote location on a private high speed network with
both
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 04:19:50AM +, quwen...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
@@ -23,11 +23,13 @@
struct btrfs_workqueue;
/* Internal use only */
struct __btrfs_workqueue;
+struct btrfs_work;
+typedef void (*btrfs_func_t)(struct btrfs_work *arg);
I don't see what's wrong with the non-typedef
On 03/12/2014 11:18 AM, Marc MERLIN wrote:
I have a file server with 4 cpu cores and 5 btrfs devices: Label:
btrfs_boot uuid: e4c1daa8-9c39-4a59-b0a9-86297d397f3b Total
devices 1 FS bytes used 48.92GiB devid1 size 79.93GiB used
73.04GiB path /dev/mapper/cryptroot
Label: varlocalspace
On 2014-03-14 09:46, George Mitchell wrote:
Actually, an interesting concept would be to have the initial two drive
RAID 1 mirrored by 2 additional drives in 4-way configuration on a
second machine at a remote location on a private high speed network with
both machines up 24/7. In that case,
On 03/11/2014 07:44 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
Hey,
Is this something you guys have seen before? This is from v3.13-rc2.
kernel: [49432.696440] WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 26411 at
/srv/autobuild-ceph/gitbuilder.git/build/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:5748
__btrfs_free_extent+0x9ce/0xa20 [btrfs]()
On 03/14/2014 11:34 AM, Sage Weil wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Josef Bacik wrote:
On 03/11/2014 07:44 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
Hey,
Is this something you guys have seen before? This is from v3.13-rc2.
kernel: [49432.696440] WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 26411 at
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Josef Bacik jba...@fb.com wrote:
On 03/14/2014 11:34 AM, Sage Weil wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Josef Bacik wrote:
On 03/11/2014 07:44 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
Hey,
Is this something you guys have seen before? This is from v3.13-rc2.
kernel: [49432.696440]
On 03/13/2014 06:16 PM, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 03:42:13PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
Lets try this again. We can deadlock the box if we send on a box and try to
write onto the same fs with the app that is trying to listen to the send pipe.
This is because the writer could get
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 12:07:54PM +, Duncan wrote:
Marc MERLIN posted on Thu, 13 Mar 2014 22:17:50 -0700 as excerpted:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 09:39:02PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Mar 13, 2014, at 8:11 PM, Marc MERLIN m...@merlins.org wrote:
On Sun, Mar 09, 2014 at
Marc == Marc MERLIN m...@merlins.org writes:
Marc,
Marc So I have Sata 3.1, that's great news, it means I can keep using
Marc discard without worrying about performance and hangs
The fact that the drive reports compliance with a certain version of
SATA does not in any way imply that it
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 15:57:41 -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
So right now I'm afraid we don't have a good way for a user to determine
whether a device supports queued trims or not.
Mount with discard, unpack kernel tree, sync, rm -rf tree.
If it takes several seconds, you have sync discard,
While we update an existing ref head's extent_op, we're not holding
its spinlock, so while we're updating its extent_op contents (key,
flags) we can have a task running __btrfs_run_delayed_refs() that
holds the ref head's lock and sets its extent_op to NULL right after
the task updating the ref
On Mar 13, 2014, at 11:17 PM, Marc MERLIN m...@merlins.org wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 09:39:02PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Mar 13, 2014, at 8:11 PM, Marc MERLIN m...@merlins.org wrote:
On Sun, Mar 09, 2014 at 11:33:50AM +, Hugo Mills wrote:
discard is, except on the very
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Rich Freeman
r-bt...@thefreemanclan.net wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Josef Bacik jba...@fb.com wrote:
On 03/12/2014 08:56 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
After a number of reboots the system became stable, presumably
whatever race condition btrfs was
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 02:51:22PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
On 03/13/2014 06:16 PM, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 03:42:13PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
Lets try this again. We can deadlock the box if we send on a box and try to
write onto the same fs with the app that is trying to
Hi all,
While fuzzing with trinity inside a KVM tools guest running the latest -next
kernel I've stumbled on the following:
[ 788.451695] =
[ 788.452455] [ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
[ 788.453020]
Hi,
Forgot to mention the reason for change. If accepted this can be
included in commit message:
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 01:49:45AM +0200, Rakesh Pandit wrote:
If pthread_mutex_lock fails (rare but fix it anyway), don't call
pthread_mutex_unlock on mutex.
Rationale being that if
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 06:33:24 PM Chris Samuel wrote:
I *think* you want smartctl -i instead, and look for the field that says
something like:
ATA Version is: ATA8-ACS, ACS-2 T13/2015-D revision 3
Late night, cut and pasted the wrong line of output, mine says:
SATA Version is: SATA 3.0,
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 08:46:09PM +, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 15:57:41 -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
So right now I'm afraid we don't have a good way for a user to determine
whether a device supports queued trims or not.
Mount with discard, unpack kernel tree,
33 matches
Mail list logo
