On 05/05/14 06:36, Roman Mamedov wrote:
On Mon, 05 May 2014 06:13:30 +0200
Brendan Hide bren...@swiftspirit.co.za wrote:
1) There will be a *very* small performance penalty (negligible, really)
Oh, really, it's slower to mount the device directly? Not that I really
care, but that's
On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 09:23:12PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
On May 4, 2014, at 5:26 PM, Marc MERLIN m...@merlins.org wrote:
Actually, never mind Suse, does someone know whether you can revert to
an older snapshot in place?
They are using snapper. Updates are not atomic, that is they
On 05/05/14 07:50, Marc MERLIN wrote:
On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 06:11:28AM +0200, Brendan Hide wrote:
The per-device used amount refers to the amount of space that has
been allocated to chunks. That first one probably needs a balance.
Btrfs doesn't behave very well when available diskspace is so
I've just written this new page:
http://marc.merlins.org/perso/btrfs/post_2014-05-04_Fixing-Btrfs-Filesystem-Full-Problems.html
First, are there problems in it?
Second, are there other FS full issues I should mention in it?
Thanks,
Marc
--
A mouse is a device used to point at the xterm you
On 05/03/2014 08:47 PM, Marc MERLIN wrote:
Is there any functional difference between
mount -o subvol=usr /dev/sda1 /usr
and
mount /dev/sda1 /mnt/btrfs_pool
mount -o bind /mnt/btrfs_pool/usr /usr
The internal implementation of mount -o subvol is a bind mount. The
only real difference is
Hello,
I had way too much email so I just deleted it all, if there was
something you wanted my specific attention on then bounce it back at me
and I'll look at it. Thanks,
Josef
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a message to
2014-05-05 22:28 GMT+08:00 Josef Bacik jba...@fb.com:
Hello,
I had way too much email so I just deleted it all, if there was something
you wanted my specific attention on then bounce it back at me and I'll look
at it. Thanks,
Welcome back, Josef!
Wang
Josef
--
To unsubscribe from this
The manpage of btrfsck.8 is supposed to link to btrfs-check.8 .
Reported-by: WorMzy Tykashi wormzy.tyka...@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: David Sterba dste...@suse.cz
---
Documentation/Makefile | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/Makefile
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 01:14:59PM +0100, WorMzy Tykashi wrote:
$(LNS) btrfs-check.8.gz $(DESTDIR)$(man8dir)
should be
$(LNS) btrfs-check.8.gz $(DESTDIR)$(man8dir)/btrfsck.8.gz
Thank you, fix sent.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body
Hello Chris,
Thanks for your response. I tried the steps you gave me, but still no luck.
Each time i try to mount ( normally, -o recovery, -o ro,recovery) i have the
following error:
[root@localhost liveuser]# mount /dev/md127 /tmp/hdd
mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on
On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 03:04:05PM +, George Pochiscan wrote:
Hello Chris,
Thanks for your response. I tried the steps you gave me, but still no luck.
Each time i try to mount ( normally, -o recovery, -o ro,recovery) i have the
following error:
[root@localhost liveuser]# mount
Hello Hugo,
Running btrfs-zero-log /dev/md127 i have the following error:
checksum verify failed on 1001492480 found 74CC3F5D wanted C222A2C9
Csum didn't match
btrfs-zero-log: extent-tree.c:2717: alloc_reserved_tree_block: Assertion
`!(ret)' failed.
Aborted (core dumped)
Full output :
On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 11:19:15AM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
To discover whether there were any metadata errors I grepped for metadata
in
the kernel message log and found lots of lines like the above. Will all
errors that involve metadata match a grep for metadata in the kernel
message
On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 07:50:11PM +0200, Hendrik Friedel wrote:
I have very high load when writing/reading from/to two of my btrfs volumes.
One sda1, mounted as /mnt/BTRFS, the other, sdd2/sde2 (raid) as /
sda1 is a 3TB disc, whereas the sdd2/sde2 are small SSDs of 16GB.
I wrote a small
On 05/05/14 14:16, Marc MERLIN wrote:
I've just written this new page:
http://marc.merlins.org/perso/btrfs/post_2014-05-04_Fixing-Btrfs-Filesystem-Full-Problems.html
First, are there problems in it?
Second, are there other FS full issues I should mention in it?
Thanks,
Marc
In the case above,
On 05/05/14 19:07, Brendan Hide wrote:
On 05/05/14 14:16, Marc MERLIN wrote:
I've just written this new page:
http://marc.merlins.org/perso/btrfs/post_2014-05-04_Fixing-Btrfs-Filesystem-Full-Problems.html
First, are there problems in it?
Second, are there other FS full issues I should
There's no reason to assume that the bad key order is in a leaf block,
so accessing level 0 of the path is going to be an error if it's actually
a node block that's bad.
Reported-by: Chris Mason c...@fb.com
Signed-off-by: Hugo Mills h...@carfax.org.uk
---
cmds-check.c | 10 ++
1 file
When we think we might have a messed-up block with keys out of order
(e.g. during fsck), we still need to be able to find a key in the block.
To deal with this, we copy the keys, keeping track of where they came from
in the original node/leaf, sort them, and then do the binary search.
If someone has had bad RAM which has been used to store a metadata block,
there's a chance that one or more of the keys has had a bit changed. The
block checksum doesn't help us here, because it's made on the bad data.
To fix this, if there's a block with a bad key order in it, we find out-of-
If you have RAM with stuck or unreliable bits in it, and a metadata block is
stored in it, you can end up with keys with errors in. These usually show up
as bad key order. In many cases, these out-of-order keys can be identified
and fixed with a simple heuristic. This patch series implements that
On Mon, 2014-05-05 at 19:07 +0200, Brendan Hide wrote:
On 05/05/14 14:16, Marc MERLIN wrote:
I've just written this new page:
http://marc.merlins.org/perso/btrfs/post_2014-05-04_Fixing-Btrfs-Filesystem-Full-Problems.html
First, are there problems in it?
Second, are there other FS full
Hi.
I'm about to try btrfs on an RAID0 md device (to be precise there will
be dm-crypt in between the md device and btrfs). If I used ext4 I
would set the stride and stripe_width extended options. Is there
anything similar I should be doing with mkfs.btrfs? Or maybe some
mount options beneficial
A passing remark I made on this list a day or two ago set me to
thinking. You may all want to hide behind your desks or in a similar
safe place away from the danger zone (say, Vladivostok) at this
point...
If we switch to the NcMsPp notation for replication, that
comfortably describes most
On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 10:51:46PM +0200, john terragon wrote:
Hi.
I'm about to try btrfs on an RAID0 md device (to be precise there will
be dm-crypt in between the md device and btrfs). If I used ext4 I
would set the stride and stripe_width extended options. Is there
anything similar I
On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 10:17:38PM +0100, Hugo Mills wrote:
Given these four (spread, dup, linear, grouped), I think it's
fairly obvious that spread is a special case of grouped, where each
device is its own group. Then dup is the opposite of grouped (i.e. you
must have one or the other but
start-btrfs-dmcrypt :
...
echo $pwd |
...
Hmmm. This makes the plaintext password visible in ps output.
It is probably better to pass this in by redirecting a file to stdin.
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Marc MERLIN m...@merlins.org wrote:
On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 10:51:46PM +0200, john
On 2014/05/05 11:17 PM, Hugo Mills wrote:
A passing remark I made on this list a day or two ago set me to
thinking. You may all want to hide behind your desks or in a similar
safe place away from the danger zone (say, Vladivostok) at this
point...
I feel like I can brave some mild horrors.
On May 5, 2014, at 9:11 AM, George Pochiscan george.pochis...@sphs.ro wrote:
Hello Hugo,
Running btrfs-zero-log /dev/md127 i have the following error:
checksum verify failed on 1001492480 found 74CC3F5D wanted C222A2C9
Csum didn't match
btrfs-zero-log: extent-tree.c:2717:
On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 02:42:53PM -0700, ronnie sahlberg wrote:
start-btrfs-dmcrypt :
...
echo $pwd |
...
Hmmm. This makes the plaintext password visible in ps output.
It is probably better to pass this in by redirecting a file to stdin.
echo is built in, it will not show up in ps.
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 11:25 PM, Marc MERLIN m...@merlins.org wrote:
This is not directly an answer to your question, so far I haven't used a
special option like this with btrfs on my arrays although my
undertstanding is that it's not as important as with ext4.
That said, please read
On May 1, 2014, at 11:50 AM, Hendrik Friedel hend...@friedels.name wrote:
Here the output:
Test from /mnt/BTRFS to /tmp
I'm not sure what this is testing, what the file size is or how many files.
These days it's increasingly common to see tmpfs mount on /tmp rather than
persistent
On Mon, 5 May 2014 14:36:09 Calvin Walton wrote:
The standard response on the mailing list for this issue is to
temporarily add an additional device to the filesystem (even e.g. a 4GB
USB flash drive is often enough) - this will add space to allocate a few
new chunks, allowing the balance to
32 matches
Mail list logo
