[PATCH] xfstest/btrfs: check for matching kernel send stream ver 2

The test case btrfs/049 is relevant to send stream version 2, and needs kernel patches as well. So call _notrun if there isn't matching kernel support as shown below btrfs/047[not run] Missing btrfs kernel patch for send stream version 2, skipped this test Not run: btrfs/047

[PATCH] btrfs-progs: check if there is required kernel send stream version

When kernel does not have the send stream version 2 patches, the btrfs send with --stream-version 2 would fail with out giving the details what is wrong. This patch will help to identify correctly that required kernel patches are missing. Signed-off-by: Anand Jain anand.j...@oracle.com ---

[PATCH] btrfs: Add show_path function for btrfs_super_ops.

show_path() function in struct super_operations is used to output subtree mount info for mountinfo. Without the implement of show_path() function, user can not found where each subvolume is mounted if using 'subvolid=' mount option. (When mounted with 'subvol=' mount option, vfs is aware of

Re: ENOSPC errors during balance

On 20/07/14 14:59, Duncan wrote: Marc Joliet posted on Sun, 20 Jul 2014 12:22:33 +0200 as excerpted: On the other hand, the wiki [0] says that defragmentation (and balancing) is optional, and the only reason stated for doing either is because they will have impact on performance. Yes. That's

Re: ENOSPC errors during balance

Am Sun, 20 Jul 2014 21:44:40 +0200 schrieb Marc Joliet mar...@gmx.de: [...] What I did: - delete the single largest file on the file system, a 12 GB VM image, along with all subvolumes that contained it - rsync it over again [...] I want to point out at this point, though, that doing

Re: 1 week to rebuid 4x 3TB raid10 is a long time!

Wang Shilong wangsl.fnst at cn.fujitsu.com writes: Just my two cents: Since 'btrfs replace' support RADI10, I suppose using replace operation is better than 'device removal and add'. Another Question is related to btrfs snapshot-aware balance. How many snapshots did you have in your

Q: BTRFS_IOC_DEFRAG_RANGE and START_IO

I working on readahead in systemd and try to complete todo for it. One of todos it is: readahead: use BTRFS_IOC_DEFRAG_RANGE instead of BTRFS_IOC_DEFRAG ioctl, with START_IO Can someone explain what start_io flag in BTRFS_IOC_DEFRAG_RANGE do? Just force write data after defragment or do

Re: 1 week to rebuid 4x 3TB raid10 is a long time!

On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote: ashford posted on Sun, 20 Jul 2014 12:59:21 -0700 as excerpted: If you assume a 12ms average seek time (normal for 7200RPM SATA drives), an 8.3ms rotational latency (half a rotation), an average 64kb write and a 100MB/S

Re: `btrfsck: extent_io.c:612: free_extent_buffer: Assertion `!(eb-flags 1)' failed.` in `btrfsck`

Hi, I could `btrfsck --repair` the sparse file with Linux 3.15.6-utopic from http://kernel.ubuntu.com/~kernel-ppa/mainline/ and btrfsck 3.12-1 (from btrfs-tools package in Ubuntu 14.04). Thanks for your hints, Wang! All the best, Karl Am 18.07.2014 14:13, schrieb Wang Shilong: Hi, There

Re: 1 week to rebuid 4x 3TB raid10 is a long time!

On Jul 21, 2014, at 10:46 AM, ronnie sahlberg ronniesahlb...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote: ashford posted on Sun, 20 Jul 2014 12:59:21 -0700 as excerpted: If you assume a 12ms average seek time (normal for 7200RPM SATA drives), an

Testing with flaky disk

List, btrfs developers. I started working on a test tool for SCSI initiators and filesystem folks. It is a iSCSI target that implements a bad flaky disks where you can set precise controls of how/what is broken which you can use to test error and recovery paths in the initiator/filesystem. The

Re: ENOSPC errors during balance

Am Mon, 21 Jul 2014 15:22:16 +0200 schrieb Marc Joliet mar...@gmx.de: Am Sun, 20 Jul 2014 21:44:40 +0200 schrieb Marc Joliet mar...@gmx.de: [...] What I did: - delete the single largest file on the file system, a 12 GB VM image, along with all subvolumes that contained it -

Re: ENOSPC errors during balance

Am Tue, 22 Jul 2014 00:30:57 +0200 schrieb Marc Joliet mar...@gmx.de: Am Mon, 21 Jul 2014 15:22:16 +0200 schrieb Marc Joliet mar...@gmx.de: Am Sun, 20 Jul 2014 21:44:40 +0200 schrieb Marc Joliet mar...@gmx.de: [...] What I did: - delete the single largest file on the file

Re: 1 week to rebuid 4x 3TB raid10 is a long time!

On 07/21/2014 10:00 PM, TM wrote: Wang Shilong wangsl.fnst at cn.fujitsu.com writes: Just my two cents: Since 'btrfs replace' support RADI10, I suppose using replace operation is better than 'device removal and add'. Another Question is related to btrfs snapshot-aware balance. How many

Re: 1 week to rebuid 4x 3TB raid10 is a long time!

On 07/21/2014 10:00 PM, TM wrote: Wang Shilong wangsl.fnst at cn.fujitsu.com writes: Just my two cents: Since 'btrfs replace' support RADI10, I suppose using replace operation is better than 'device removal and add'. Another Question is related to btrfs snapshot-aware balance. How many

Re: 1 week to rebuid 4x 3TB raid10 is a long time!

ronnie sahlberg posted on Mon, 21 Jul 2014 09:46:07 -0700 as excerpted: On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote: ashford posted on Sun, 20 Jul 2014 12:59:21 -0700 as excerpted: If you assume a 12ms average seek time (normal for 7200RPM SATA drives), an 8.3ms

Re: ENOSPC errors during balance

Marc Joliet posted on Tue, 22 Jul 2014 01:30:22 +0200 as excerpted: And now that the background deletion of the old snapshots is done, the file system ended up at: # btrfs filesystem df /run/media/marcec/MARCEC_BACKUP Data, single: total=219.00GiB, used=140.13GiB System, DUP: