Hello,
I just had a very frustrating experience with btrfs, which I was only
able to resolve by rolling back to ext4 using the subvol btrfs-convert
created. The same type of situation occurred before when I was using
the ext file system and the result was far less disastrous.
The source of
Missing '+'s cause '-B' option not displayed correctly, add it to fix.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo quwen...@cn.fujitsu.com
---
Documentation/btrfs-replace.txt | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/btrfs-replace.txt b/Documentation/btrfs-replace.txt
index
Thanks for responses.
All of this is *very* surprising. I'm not new to BTRFS, I've been
using it on my own machines for multiple years. I didn't realise there
was an un-holstered footgun on my lap at this point. How can it be
made clear how to avoid the ENOSPC problem to myself and other
Hi Peter,
All of this is *very* surprising. I'm not new to BTRFS, I've been
using it on my own machines for multiple years. I didn't realise there
was an un-holstered footgun on my lap at this point. How can it be
made clear how to avoid the ENOSPC problem to myself and other
sysadmins? Or
On Mon, 4 Aug 2014 01:31:42 PM Russell Coker wrote:
Is BTRFS supported in that version of Ubuntu?
Out of the box a fresh 14.04 install onto btrfs worked fine for me on two
different sets of hardware. 13.10 the same on a third piece of hardware.
cheers,
Chris
--
Chris Samuel :
On Mon, 4 Aug 2014 09:14:19 AM Peter Waller wrote:
All of this is *very* surprising.
Hmm, it shouldn't be, the ENOSPC issues are well known and have been discussed
here for years.
cheers,
Chris
--
Chris Samuel : http://www.csamuel.org/ : Melbourne, VIC
--
To unsubscribe from this
Hi Chris,
Hmm, it shouldn't be, the ENOSPC issues are well known and have been discussed
here for years.
Which doesn't protect the *average* user from running into issues like this.
Just because it has been discussed, doesn't mean nothing can/should be
done about it ;)
However, as I am only a
On 4 August 2014 10:39, Chris Samuel ch...@csamuel.org wrote:
On Mon, 4 Aug 2014 09:14:19 AM Peter Waller wrote:
All of this is *very* surprising.
Hmm, it shouldn't be, the ENOSPC issues are well known and have been discussed
here for years.
I accept that. It's all very well if you read the
On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 11:09:23AM +0100, Peter Waller wrote:
On 4 August 2014 10:39, Chris Samuel ch...@csamuel.org wrote:
On Mon, 4 Aug 2014 09:14:19 AM Peter Waller wrote:
All of this is *very* surprising.
Hmm, it shouldn't be, the ENOSPC issues are well known and have been
On Mon, 4 Aug 2014 11:56:46 AM Clemens Eisserer wrote:
Which doesn't protect the *average* user from running into issues like this.
No, but they need to be aware of it.
Just because it has been discussed, doesn't mean nothing can/should be done
about it
Indeed, and a lot of work has been
On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 11:31:57AM +0100, Peter Waller wrote:
Thanks Hugo, this is the most informative e-mail yet! (more inline)
On 4 August 2014 11:22, Hugo Mills h...@carfax.org.uk wrote:
* btrfs fi show
- look at the total and used values. If used total, you're OK.
If
On 4 August 2014 11:39, Hugo Mills h...@carfax.org.uk wrote:
* btrfs fi df
- look at metadata used vs total. If these are close to zero (on
3.15+) or close to 512 MiB (on 3.15), then you are in danger of
ENOSPC.
Hmm. It's unfortunate that this could indicate an amount of
Thanks Hugo, this is the most informative e-mail yet! (more inline)
On 4 August 2014 11:22, Hugo Mills h...@carfax.org.uk wrote:
* btrfs fi show
- look at the total and used values. If used total, you're OK.
If used == total, then you could potentially hit ENOSPC.
Another thing
On 4 August 2014 11:50, Chris Samuel ch...@csamuel.org wrote:
To be honest I'm not sure I'd suggest btrfs for production use at all at
present, it's only recently been unmarked as experimental and to be honest I
feel that was premature. :-(
Thanks for the honest answer.
There are very
Hi Hugo,
On the 3.15+ kernels, the block reserve is split out of metadata
and reported separately. This helps with the following process:
Thanks a lot for pointing this out, I hadn't noticed this change until now.
One thing I didn't find any information about is the overhead
introduced by
On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 01:04:25PM +0200, Clemens Eisserer wrote:
Hi Hugo,
On the 3.15+ kernels, the block reserve is split out of metadata
and reported separately. This helps with the following process:
Thanks a lot for pointing this out, I hadn't noticed this change until now.
Am Freitag, 25. Juli 2014, 11:54:37 schrieb Martin Steigerwald:
Am Donnerstag, 24. Juli 2014, 22:48:05 schrieben Sie:
When failing to allocate space for the whole compressed extent, we'll
fallback to uncompressed IO, but we've forgotten to redirty the pages
which belong to this compressed
Am Montag, 4. August 2014, 14:50:29 schrieb Martin Steigerwald:
Am Freitag, 25. Juli 2014, 11:54:37 schrieb Martin Steigerwald:
Am Donnerstag, 24. Juli 2014, 22:48:05 schrieben Sie:
When failing to allocate space for the whole compressed extent, we'll
fallback to uncompressed IO, but
After completely loosing my filesystem twice because of this bug, I gave
up using btrfs on top of bcache (also writeback). In my case, I used to
have some subvolumes and some snapshot of these subvolumes, but not many
of them. The btrfs mantra backup, bakcup and backup saved me.
Best regards,
For anyone else having this problem, this article is fairly useful for
understanding disk full problems and rebalance:
http://marc.merlins.org/perso/btrfs/post_2014-05-04_Fixing-Btrfs-Filesystem-Full-Problems.html
It actually covers the problem that I had, which is that a rebalance
can't take
On 07/29/2014 11:54 PM, Nick Krause wrote:
Hey Guys ,
I am new to reading and writing kernel code.I got interested in
writing code for btrfs as it seems to
need more work then other file systems and this seems other then
drivers, a good use of time on my part.
I interested in helping
On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 02:17:02PM +0100, Peter Waller wrote:
For anyone else having this problem, this article is fairly useful for
understanding disk full problems and rebalance:
http://marc.merlins.org/perso/btrfs/post_2014-05-04_Fixing-Btrfs-Filesystem-Full-Problems.html
It actually
On 2014-08-04 09:17, Peter Waller wrote:
For anyone else having this problem, this article is fairly useful for
understanding disk full problems and rebalance:
http://marc.merlins.org/perso/btrfs/post_2014-05-04_Fixing-Btrfs-Filesystem-Full-Problems.html
It actually covers the problem that
On 4 August 2014 15:02, Austin S Hemmelgarn ahferro...@gmail.com wrote:
I really disagree with the statement that adding more storage is
difficult or expensive, all you need to do is plug in a 2G USB flash
drive, or allocate a ramdisk, and add the device to the filesystem only
long enough to
On 2014-08-04 10:11, Peter Waller wrote:
On 4 August 2014 15:02, Austin S Hemmelgarn ahferro...@gmail.com wrote:
I really disagree with the statement that adding more storage is
difficult or expensive, all you need to do is plug in a 2G USB flash
drive, or allocate a ramdisk, and add the
On Mon, 4 Aug 2014 14:17:02 Peter Waller wrote:
For anyone else having this problem, this article is fairly useful for
understanding disk full problems and rebalance:
http://marc.merlins.org/perso/btrfs/post_2014-05-04_Fixing-Btrfs-Filesystem-
Full-Problems.html
It actually covers the
On 04/08/2014 04:31, Russell Coker wrote:
What is GRUB (or your boot loader) giving as parameters to the kernel?
What error messages appear on screen? Sometimes it's helpful to
photograph the screen and put the picture on a web server to help
people diagnose the problem.
Here a screenshot
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Russell Coker russ...@coker.com.au wrote:
If you regularly run a scrub with options such as -dusage=50 -musage=10 then
the amount of free space in metadata chunks will tend to be a lot greater than
that in data chunks.
Just to clarify for posterity, I'm pretty
On Aug 4, 2014, at 12:29 AM, rocwhite168 rocwhite...@163.com wrote:
Hello,
I just had a very frustrating experience with btrfs, which I was only
able to resolve by rolling back to ext4 using the subvol btrfs-convert
created. The same type of situation occurred before when I was using
the
On 2014-08-04 06:31, Peter Waller wrote:
Thanks Hugo, this is the most informative e-mail yet! (more inline)
On 4 August 2014 11:22, Hugo Mills h...@carfax.org.uk wrote:
* btrfs fi show
- look at the total and used values. If used total, you're OK.
If used == total, then you
None of the uses of btrfs_search_forward() need to have the path
nodes (level = 1) read locked, only the leaf needs to be locked
while the caller processes it. Therefore make it return a path
with all nodes unlocked, except for the leaf.
This change is motivated by the observation that during a
On Sat, Aug 02, 2014 at 02:24:49PM +0200, Fabian Frederick wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 12:01:52 -0700
Zach Brown z...@zabbo.net wrote:
@@ -515,7 +515,8 @@ static int write_buf(struct file *filp, const
void *buf,
u32 len, loff_t *off)
Though this probably wants to be
On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 06:12:37PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
Reading the quota tree root may fail with ENOENT
if there is no quota, which is fine, but the code was
ignoring every other error as well, which is not fine.
Kinda makes you want to write a test that would have caught this.
Kinda.
On 8/4/14, 1:35 PM, Zach Brown wrote:
On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 06:12:37PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
Reading the quota tree root may fail with ENOENT
if there is no quota, which is fine, but the code was
ignoring every other error as well, which is not fine.
Kinda makes you want to write a
On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 01:42:23PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 8/4/14, 1:35 PM, Zach Brown wrote:
On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 06:12:37PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
Reading the quota tree root may fail with ENOENT
if there is no quota, which is fine, but the code was
ignoring every other
On 8/4/14, 1:51 PM, Zach Brown wrote:
On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 01:42:23PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 8/4/14, 1:35 PM, Zach Brown wrote:
On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 06:12:37PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
Reading the quota tree root may fail with ENOENT
if there is no quota, which is fine, but the
The output options of btrfs sub list seem a bit... arbitrary?
awkward? unhelpful?
Here's my problem: Given a path at some arbitrary point into a
mounted btrfs (sub)volume, find all subvolumes visible under that
point, and identify their absolute path names.
My test btrfs filesystem
Hi Peter,
On Mon, 4 Aug 2014 11:59:19 AM Peter Waller wrote:
On 4 August 2014 11:50, Chris Samuel ch...@csamuel.org wrote:
To be honest I'm not sure I'd suggest btrfs for production use at all at
present, it's only recently been unmarked as experimental and to be honest
I feel that was
I apologize if this has already been addressed, regardless of whether
or not it's a n00b question, I'm stumped and am looking for some
guidance.
Is iostat a viable measure of btrfs performance?
I've got the following environment:
On 08/01/2014 05:05 AM, Anand Jain wrote:
Hi Chris,
Looks like you missed Miao update (on 17 Jul) to back out the bad
patch (below), and your integration branch (published on 25 Jul)
still contains the same.
[PATCH 2/2] Btrfs: fix wrong total device counter after removing a seed
40 matches
Mail list logo
