On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Russell Coker russ...@coker.com.au wrote:
When the 2 disks have different data mdadm has no way of knowing which
one is correct and has a 50% chance of overwriting good data. But BTRFS
does
On Mon, 01 Dec 2014 09:06:19 +1100
Russell Coker russ...@coker.com.au wrote:
When the 2 disks have different data mdadm has no way of knowing
which one is correct and has a 50% chance of overwriting good data.
But BTRFS does checksums on all reads and solves the problem of
corrupt data - as
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 03:27:31PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
I can do that, but part of the reason why we were doing this rather
involved set of changes was to allow other file systems to be able to
take advantage of lazytime. I suppose there is value in allowing
other file systems, such as
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014 10:42:36 +0500
Roman Mamedov r...@romanrm.net wrote:
Pros:
[...]
Con:
* You only get the ability to recover from a checksum failure with
Btrfs RAID1, not with mdadm RAID1 (see Russell's reply).
For the reasons you mentioned I'll keep my root under btrfs' native raid
On Sun, 30 Nov 2014 18:00:37 -0700
Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
Yeah. I'm not sure though if openSUSE 13.2 prevents users from
creating btrfs raid1 volumes entirely, or if it's just an install time
limitation.
I was able to create btrfs raid1 volumes under lvm, but installer
If we failed to reading out the checksum, we would free all the checksums
in the list. But the current code accessed the list head, not the entry
in the list. Fix it.
Signed-off-by: Miao Xie mi...@cn.fujitsu.com
---
fs/btrfs/file-item.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Is this topic relevant for the broarder FS community? Maybe the btrfs
community should look into organizing a meeting co-hosted with Vault
similar to what we did for ext4 and XFS in the past?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a message to
Please ignore this patch, Chris has fixed this problem.
Thanks
Miao
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014 18:04:13 +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
If we failed to reading out the checksum, we would free all the checksums
in the list. But the current code accessed the list head, not the entry
in the list. Fix it.
Hi,
I'm running Fedora Core 21 beta with kernel 3.17.4-300.fc21.x86_64 and
Btrfs-progs-3.17-1.fc21.x86_64
As my SSD was pretty full, I started :
btrfs balance start -dusage=75 -musage=75 /
This ended in segmentation fault.
Afterwards my system wouldn't access the disk anymore, and needed a
Hi, guys.
We have a problem with btrfs file system: sometimes it became stuck
without leaving me any way to interrupt it (shutdown -r now is unable to
restart server). By stuck I mean some processes that previously were
able to write on disk are unable to cope with load and load average goes
up:
On 2014-11-29 16:21, John Williams wrote:
On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Alex Elsayed eternal...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd suggest looking more closely at the crypto api section of menuconfig -
it already has crc32c, among others. Just because it's called the crypto
api doesn't mean it only has
On 2014-11-30 20:58, Qu Wenruo wrote:
[BACKGROUND]
I'm trying to implement the function to repair missing inode item.
Under that case, inode type must be salvaged(although it can be fallback to
FILE).
One case should be, if there is any dir_item/index or inode_ref refers the
inode as parent,
Hi all,
I've reported the bug I've previously posted about in BTRFS messes up
snapshot LV with origin in the Kernel Bug Tracker.
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89121
Since the other thread went off into theoretical debates about UUIDs
and their generic relation to BTRFS, their
On 2014-11-29 23:23, Marc MERLIN wrote:
On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 09:03:14AM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
IIUC with BtrFS while it is possible to easily undelete a file or
ordinary directory if a snapshot of the containing subvol exists, it
seems that it's not elementary to undelete a subvol
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Austin S Hemmelgarn
ahferro...@gmail.com wrote:
We might want to consider adding an option to btrfs subvol del to ask for
confirmation (or make it do so by default and add an option to disable
asking for confirmation).
I already reported:
2014-12-01 14:12 GMT+01:00 Austin S Hemmelgarn ahferro...@gmail.com:
We might want to consider adding an option to btrfs subvol del to ask for
confirmation (or make it do so by default and add an option to disable
asking for confirmation).
I've also noticed, a subvolume can just be deleted
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014 18:49:23 +0530
Shriramana Sharma samj...@gmail.com wrote:
As I requested there, I prefer for confirmation by default and -f to
force otherwise, rather than behaviour of rm which requires -i to ask
confirmation.
And I prefer the current behavior (also replied on the bug).
A
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014 14:38:16 +0100
MegaBrutal megabru...@gmail.com wrote:
I've also noticed, a subvolume can just be deleted with an rm -r,
just like an ordinary directory. I'd consider to only allow subvolume
deletions with exact btrfs subvolume delete commands, and they
This is already the
On 2014-12-01 08:38, MegaBrutal wrote:
2014-12-01 14:12 GMT+01:00 Austin S Hemmelgarn ahferro...@gmail.com:
We might want to consider adding an option to btrfs subvol del to ask for
confirmation (or make it do so by default and add an option to disable
asking for confirmation).
I've also
On Mon, 01 Dec 2014 14:38:16 +0100, MegaBrutal wrote:
I've also noticed, a subvolume can just be deleted with an rm -r,
just like an ordinary directory. I'd consider to only allow subvolume
Nope:
rootbtrfs subvolume create foo
Create subvolume './foo'
roottouch foo/bla
rootll foo
total 0
2014-12-01 14:47 GMT+01:00 Roman Mamedov r...@romanrm.net:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014 14:38:16 +0100
MegaBrutal megabru...@gmail.com wrote:
I've also noticed, a subvolume can just be deleted with an rm -r,
just like an ordinary directory. I'd consider to only allow subvolume
deletions with exact
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 5:13 AM, Christoph Hellwig h...@infradead.org
wrote:
Is this topic relevant for the broarder FS community? Maybe the btrfs
community should look into organizing a meeting co-hosted with Vault
similar to what we did for ext4 and XFS in the past?
Yeah, this is a very
Hi All,
on a testing machine I installed four HDDs and they are configured as
RAID6. For a test I removed one of the drives (/dev/sdk) while the
volume was mounted and data was written to it. This worked well, as far
as I can see. Some I/O errors were written to /var/log/syslog, but the
On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 01:28:10AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
The -is_readonly method seems like a clear winner to me, I'm all for
adding it, and thus suggested moving it first in the series.
It's a real winner for me as well, but the reason why I dropped it is
because if btrfs() has to
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 11:55:07PM -0800, Robert White wrote:
On 11/28/2014 08:59 PM, Zygo Blaxell wrote:
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 06:05:48PM +0100, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
On 11/27/2014 05:15 AM, Zygo Blaxell wrote:
This is a weakness of the current udev and asynchronous device hotplug
Hi,
I got another kernel crash during a balance, this time with a nice kernel
bug...:
déc. 01 16:19:09 vajra kernel: [ cut here ]
déc. 01 16:19:09 vajra kernel: WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 5396 at fs/btrfs/extent-
tree.c:876 btrfs_lookup_extent_info+0x4c6/0x4e0 [btrfs]()
déc.
From: Anand Jain anand.j...@oracle.com
Not yet ready for integration, but for review and testing of the new sysfs
layout
which is currently under /sys/fs/btrfs/by_fsid
This patch makes btrfs_fs_devices and btrfs_device information readable
from sysfs. This uses the sysfs group visible entry
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 7:16 PM, Roman Mamedov r...@romanrm.net wrote:
A more sensible idea could be adding a global-level '-i' switch, same as in
'rm', so that you or distros could then alias 'btrfs' to 'btrfs -i' (ask
confirmation on any irreversible action).
Well the difference being that
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 7:24 PM, MegaBrutal megabru...@gmail.com wrote:
If you want to make snapshots which can't be removed by ordinary tools, use
the 'read-only' mode when creating them.
Yeah, good idea! Anyway, is it possible to change a read-only snapshot
to read-write and vica-versa, or
Trimming is completely transactionless, and the way it operates consists
of hiding free space entries from a block group, perform the trim/discard
and then make the free space entries visible again.
Therefore while a free space entry is being trimmed, we can have free space
cache writing running
On error, after adding the extent map to the tree and to the pending
chunks list, we would leave decrementing the extent map's refcount
by 2 instead of 3 (our allocation + tree reference + list reference).
Detected by 'rmmod btrfs':
[20770.105881] kmem_cache_destroy btrfs_extent_map: Slab cache
There was a free space entry structure memeory leak if a block
group is remove while a free space entry is being trimmed, which
the following diagram explains:
CPU 1 CPU 2
btrfs_trim_block_group()
trim_no_bitmap()
remove free
Stress btrfs' block group allocation and deallocation while running
fstrim in parallel. Part of the goal is also to get data block groups
deallocated so that new metadata block groups, using the same physical
device space ranges, get allocated while fstrim is running. This caused
several issues
On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 10:04:50AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 01:28:10AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
The -is_readonly method seems like a clear winner to me, I'm all for
adding it, and thus suggested moving it first in the series.
It's a real winner for me
On 12/01/2014 08:40 AM, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
IIUC you can only specify RO while creating but you can always cheaply
create a RW snapshot of an RO one or an RO snapshot of an RW one...
You can turn ReadOnly status on and off (er. true and false) with
btrfs property get/set ro=true/false
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Austin S Hemmelgarn
ahferro...@gmail.com wrote:
Just because it's a filesystem doesn't always mean that speed is the most
important thing. Personally, I can think of multiple cases where using a
cryptographically strong hash would be preferable, for example:
On 2014-12-01 08:54, MegaBrutal wrote:
2014-12-01 14:47 GMT+01:00 Roman Mamedov r...@romanrm.net:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014 14:38:16 +0100
MegaBrutal megabru...@gmail.com wrote:
I've also noticed, a subvolume can just be deleted with an rm -r,
just like an ordinary directory. I'd consider to only
On 12/01/2014 04:56 AM, MegaBrutal wrote:
Since the other thread went off into theoretical debates about UUIDs
and their generic relation to BTRFS, their everyday use cases, and the
philosophical meaning behind uniqueness of copies and UUIDs; I'd like
to specifically ask you to only post here
On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 08:50:09AM -0500, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
It would not surprise
me though if RHEL or SuSE had patched the kernel to allow using rm on a
subvolume.
This would be quite a big change in behaviour that we would not do
without taking it upstream first.
--
To unsubscribe
Hi Anand,
On 12/01/2014 06:33 PM, Anand Jain wrote:
From: Anand Jain anand.j...@oracle.com
Not yet ready for integration, but for review and testing of the new sysfs
layout
which is currently under /sys/fs/btrfs/by_fsid
This patch makes btrfs_fs_devices and btrfs_device information
On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 08:12:02AM -0500, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2014-11-29 23:23, Marc MERLIN wrote:
On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 09:03:14AM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
IIUC with BtrFS while it is possible to easily undelete a file or
ordinary directory if a snapshot of the
On 2014-12-01 12:22, John Williams wrote:
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Austin S Hemmelgarn
ahferro...@gmail.com wrote:
Just because it's a filesystem doesn't always mean that speed is the most
important thing. Personally, I can think of multiple cases where using a
cryptographically strong
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Austin S Hemmelgarn Except most of
the CPU optimized hashes aren't crypto hashes (other than the
various SHA implementations). Furthermore, I've actually tested the speed
of a generic CRC32c implementation versus SHA-1 using the SHA instructions
on an
On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 09:21:26AM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
I am asked to read the ToS before signing up on the wiki:
Make sure that you first read the Terms of Service before requesting an
account.
... but the link is red and the page does not exist.
Reported to kernel.org
On 11/30/2014 10:18 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
(advocacy for using SQL internally for btrfsck)
All of these ideas you want to toss a entire SQL front end on are more
simply handled with simple data structures.
In C++ terms mapinode,parent and/or mapparent,vectorchildren
beats the heck out of
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 02:03:02PM -0800, Omar Sandoval wrote:
Alright, I took a look at this. My understanding is that a PREALLOC extent
represents a region on disk that has already been allocated but isn't in use
yet, but please correct me if I'm wrong. Judging by this comment in
On 12/01/2014 01:26 AM, Gour wrote:
On Mon, 01 Dec 2014 09:06:19 +1100
Russell Coker russ...@coker.com.au wrote:
When the 2 disks have different data mdadm has no way of knowing
which one is correct and has a 50% chance of overwriting good data.
But BTRFS does checksums on all reads and solves
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 08:58:50AM -0500, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2014-11-26 08:38, Brendan Hide wrote:
On 2014/11/25 18:47, David Sterba wrote:
We could provide an interface for external applications that would make
use of the strong checksums. Eg. external dedup, integrity db. The
On 12/01/2014 03:46 AM, Peter Volkov wrote:
Hi, guys.
(stuff about getting hung up trying to write to one drive)
That drive (/dev/sdn) is probably starting to fail. Some older drives
basically go unresponsive when they start to go bad. Particularly if
they've gone bad enough to have run out
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 11:52:20AM +0800, Liu Bo wrote:
There are several checksum algorithms that trade off speed and strength
so we may want to support more than just sha256. Easy to add but I'd
rather see them added in all at once than one by one.
Another question is if we'd like to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/25/2014 6:13 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
The drive will only issue a read error when its ECC absolutely
cannot recover the data, hard fail.
A few years ago companies including Western Digital started
shipping large cheap drives, think of the
John Williams wrote:
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Austin S Hemmelgarn Except most of
the CPU optimized hashes aren't crypto hashes (other than the
various SHA implementations). Furthermore, I've actually tested the
speed of a generic CRC32c implementation versus SHA-1 using the SHA
On 12/01/2014 06:47 AM, Oliver wrote:
Hi All,
on a testing machine I installed four HDDs and they are configured as
RAID6. For a test I removed one of the drives (/dev/sdk) while the
volume was mounted and data was written to it. This worked well, as far
as I can see. Some I/O errors were
Alex Elsayed wrote:
* He was comparing CRC32 (a 32-bit non-cryptographic hash, *via the Crypto
API*) against SHA-1 (a 128-bit cryptographic hash, via the Crypto API),
and SHA-1 _still_ won. CRC32 tends to beat the pants off 128-bit non-
cryptographic hashes simply because those require
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Alex Elsayed eternal...@gmail.com wrote:
I think there's a fundamental set of points being missed.
That may be true, but it is not me who is missing them.
* The Crypto API can be used to access non-cryptographic hashes. Full stop.
Irrelevant to my point. I am
John Williams wrote:
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Alex Elsayed eternal...@gmail.com
wrote:
I think there's a fundamental set of points being missed.
That may be true, but it is not me who is missing them.
* The Crypto API can be used to access non-cryptographic hashes. Full
stop.
On 2014-12-01 13:37, David Sterba wrote:
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 08:58:50AM -0500, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2014-11-26 08:38, Brendan Hide wrote:
On 2014/11/25 18:47, David Sterba wrote:
We could provide an interface for external applications that would make
use of the strong checksums.
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Alex Elsayed eternal...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, I said Sure here, but this isn't strictly true. At some point,
you're more memory-bound than CPU-bound, and with CPU intrinsic instructions
(like SPARC and recent x86 have for SHA) you're often past that. Then,
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Austin S Hemmelgarn
ahferro...@gmail.com wrote:
My only reasoning is that with this set of hashes (crc32c, adler32, and
md5), the statistical likely-hood of running into a hash collision with more
than one of them at a time is infinitesimally small compared to
Hi,
I'm having fairly frequent kernel lockups caused by btrfs, which I think
it might be a serious bug. I'm using linux-3.17.3.200.fc20.x86_64. It
freezes the whole system, and spits the error trace in the journal a few
seconds later.
Here's the journal log, notice that there are 2 stack
MegaBrutal schrieb am 01.12.2014 um 13:56:
Hi all,
I've reported the bug I've previously posted about in BTRFS messes up
snapshot LV with origin in the Kernel Bug Tracker.
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89121
Hi MegaBrutal. If I understand your report correctly, I can give you
2014-12-01 18:27 GMT+01:00 Robert White rwh...@pobox.com:
On 12/01/2014 04:56 AM, MegaBrutal wrote:
Since the other thread went off into theoretical debates about UUIDs
and their generic relation to BTRFS, their everyday use cases, and the
philosophical meaning behind uniqueness of copies and
John Williams wrote:
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Alex Elsayed eternal...@gmail.com
wrote:
Actually, I said Sure here, but this isn't strictly true. At some
point, you're more memory-bound than CPU-bound, and with CPU intrinsic
instructions (like SPARC and recent x86 have for SHA) you're
John Williams wrote:
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Alex Elsayed eternal...@gmail.com
wrote:
Actually, I said Sure here, but this isn't strictly true. At some
point, you're more memory-bound than CPU-bound, and with CPU intrinsic
instructions (like SPARC and recent x86 have for SHA) you're
John Williams wrote:
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Austin S Hemmelgarn
ahferro...@gmail.com wrote:
My only reasoning is that with this set of hashes (crc32c, adler32, and
md5), the statistical likely-hood of running into a hash collision with
more than one of them at a time is
On 12/01/2014 02:10 PM, MegaBrutal wrote:
Since having duplicate UUIDs on devices is not a problem for me since
I can tell them apart by LVM names, the discussion is of little
relevance to my use case. Of course it's interesting and I like to
read it along, it is not about the actual problem at
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Alex Elsayed eternal...@gmail.com wrote:
Incidentally, you can be 'skeptical' all you like - per Austin's message
upthread, he was testing the Crypto API. Thus, skeptical as you may be, hard
evidence shows that SHA-1 was equal to or faster than CRC32, which is
Hi Goffredo,
inline below..
On 02/12/2014 01:29, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
Hi Anand,
On 12/01/2014 06:33 PM, Anand Jain wrote:
From: Anand Jain anand.j...@oracle.com
Not yet ready for integration, but for review and testing of the new sysfs
layout
which is currently under
John Williams wrote:
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Alex Elsayed eternal...@gmail.com wrote:
Incidentally, you can be 'skeptical' all you like - per Austin's message
upthread, he was testing the Crypto API. Thus, skeptical as you may be,
hard evidence shows that SHA-1 was equal to or faster
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Alex Elsayed eternal...@gmail.com wrote:
hard evidence shows that SHA-1 was equal to or faster than CRC32, which is
unequivocally simpler and faster than CityHash (though CityHash comes
close).
And the CPUs in question are *not* particularly rare - Intel since
John Williams wrote:
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Alex Elsayed eternal...@gmail.com wrote:
Incidentally, you can be 'skeptical' all you like - per Austin's message
upthread, he was testing the Crypto API. Thus, skeptical as you may be,
hard evidence shows that SHA-1 was equal to or faster
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Alex Elsayed eternal...@gmail.com wrote:
And I'm not sure what is convoluted or incorrect about saying Look,
empirical evidence!
No empirical evidence of the speed of SpookyHash or CityHash versus
SHA-1 was cited. The only empirical data mentioned was on an
John Williams wrote:
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Alex Elsayed eternal...@gmail.com wrote:
hard evidence shows that SHA-1 was equal to or faster than CRC32, which
is unequivocally simpler and faster than CityHash (though CityHash comes
close).
And the CPUs in question are *not*
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Alex Elsayed eternal...@gmail.com wrote:
And that _is_ the case; they are faster... *when both are software
implementations*
They are also faster when both are optimized to use special
instructions of the CPU.
According to this Intel whitepaper, SHA-1 does not
Alex Elsayed wrote:
So CityHash is - at best - half as fast as SHA1 with acceleration.
In fact, on the Apple A7, it would likely be slower than _software_ SHA-1.
Argh, ignore this. The CityHash readme is in bytes/cycle, which I missed on
first readthrough (why on earth they are not using
2014-12-02 0:24 GMT+01:00 Robert White rwh...@pobox.com:
On 12/01/2014 02:10 PM, MegaBrutal wrote:
Since having duplicate UUIDs on devices is not a problem for me since
I can tell them apart by LVM names, the discussion is of little
relevance to my use case. Of course it's interesting and I
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Alex Elsayed eternal...@gmail.com wrote:
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/blob/master/crypto/sha/asm/sha1-armv8.pl
# hardware-assisted software(*)
# Apple A72.31 4.13 (+14%)
# Cortex-A53 2.19 8.73 (+108%)
#
John Williams wrote:
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Alex Elsayed eternal...@gmail.com wrote:
And I'm not sure what is convoluted or incorrect about saying Look,
empirical evidence!
No empirical evidence of the speed of SpookyHash or CityHash versus
SHA-1 was cited. The only empirical data
On Sat, 2014-11-29 at 13:00 -0800, John Williams wrote:
On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Alex Elsayed eternal...@gmail.com wrote:
Why not just use the kernel crypto API? Then the user can just specify any
hash the kernel supports.
One reason is that crytographic hashes are an order of
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Alex Elsayed eternal...@gmail.com wrote:
There's a thing called the transitive property. When CRC32 is faster than
SpookyHash and CityHash (while admittedly weaker), and SHA-1 on SPARC is
faster than CRC32, there are comparisons that can be made.
And yet you
John Williams wrote:
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Alex Elsayed eternal...@gmail.com wrote:
There's a thing called the transitive property. When CRC32 is faster than
SpookyHash and CityHash (while admittedly weaker), and SHA-1 on SPARC is
faster than CRC32, there are comparisons that can be
Original Message
Subject: Re: Crazy idea of cleanup the inode_record btrfsck things with SQL?
From: Austin S Hemmelgarn ahferro...@gmail.com
To: Qu Wenruo quwen...@cn.fujitsu.com, linux-btrfs
linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Date: 2014年12月01日 20:53
On 2014-11-30 20:58, Qu Wenruo
Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
On Sat, 2014-11-29 at 13:00 -0800, John Williams wrote:
On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Alex Elsayed eternal...@gmail.com
wrote:
Why not just use the kernel crypto API? Then the user can just specify
any hash the kernel supports.
One reason is that
On Mon, 2014-12-01 at 16:43 -0800, Alex Elsayed wrote:
including that MAC-then-encrypt is fragile
against a number of attacks, mainly in the padding-oracle category (See: TLS
BEAST attack).
Well but here we talk about disk encryption... how would the MtE oracle
problems apply to that? Either
Original Message
Subject: Re: Crazy idea of cleanup the inode_record btrfsck things with SQL?
From: Robert White rwh...@pobox.com
To: Qu Wenruo quwen...@cn.fujitsu.com, linux-btrfs
linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Date: 2014年12月02日 02:10
On 11/30/2014 10:18 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
On Mon, 2014-12-01 at 16:43 -0800, Alex Elsayed wrote:
including that MAC-then-encrypt is fragile
against a number of attacks, mainly in the padding-oracle category (See:
TLS BEAST attack).
Well but here we talk about disk encryption... how would the MtE
Alex Elsayed wrote:
Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
On Mon, 2014-12-01 at 16:43 -0800, Alex Elsayed wrote:
including that MAC-then-encrypt is fragile
against a number of attacks, mainly in the padding-oracle category (See:
TLS BEAST attack).
Well but here we talk about disk encryption...
Original Message
Subject: btrfs stuck with lot's of files
From: Peter Volkov p...@gentoo.org
To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Date: 2014年12月01日 19:46
Hi, guys.
We have a problem with btrfs file system: sometimes it became stuck
without leaving me
В Вт, 02/12/2014 в 09:33 +0800, Qu Wenruo пишет:
Original Message
Subject: btrfs stuck with lot's of files
From: Peter Volkov p...@gentoo.org
To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Date: 2014年12月01日 19:46
Hi, guys.
We have a problem with btrfs file
On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 05:11:29PM +, Filipe Manana wrote:
Stress btrfs' block group allocation and deallocation while running
fstrim in parallel. Part of the goal is also to get data block groups
deallocated so that new metadata block groups, using the same physical
device space ranges,
On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 10:09:44PM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 7:16 PM, Roman Mamedov r...@romanrm.net wrote:
A more sensible idea could be adding a global-level '-i' switch, same as in
'rm', so that you or distros could then alias 'btrfs' to 'btrfs -i' (ask
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 6:24 AM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
But isn't it just possible to move i.e. reparent a
subvol so I can move these two under another subvol and have that as
default?
You can move subvolumes.
OK so I just found out that just mv test1/foo test2/ where
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Zygo Blaxell
ce3g8...@umail.furryterror.org wrote:
This is consistent with the
way lvm2 and mdadm work when presented with data-losing or otherwise
questionable commands and parameters. It will break scripts, but btrfs
users should still be expecting that for a
2014-12-01 17:39 GMT+01:00 Shriramana Sharma samj...@gmail.com:
When btrfs has so many features (esp snapshots) to prevent user
accidentally deleting data (I liked especially
http://www.youtube.com/v/9H7e6BcI5Fo?start=209) I think there has to
be *some* modicum of support for warning against
2014-12-02 4:40 GMT+01:00 Shriramana Sharma samj...@gmail.com:
Well in office environs, where the root password is with a certain
person only, then that's fine because that person is going to be wary
of doing anything that's make others angry at them, but on single-user
systems, one's regular
2014-12-01 22:45 GMT+01:00 Konstantin newsbox1...@web.de:
MegaBrutal schrieb am 01.12.2014 um 13:56:
Hi all,
I've reported the bug I've previously posted about in BTRFS messes up
snapshot LV with origin in the Kernel Bug Tracker.
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89121
Hi
On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 06:33:38AM +0100, MegaBrutal wrote:
2014-12-01 17:39 GMT+01:00 Shriramana Sharma samj...@gmail.com:
When btrfs has so many features (esp snapshots) to prevent user
accidentally deleting data (I liked especially
http://www.youtube.com/v/9H7e6BcI5Fo?start=209) I
Hi all,
I know there is a btrfstune, but it doesn't provide all the
functionality I'm thinking of.
For ext2/3/4 file systems I can get a bunch of useful data with
tune2fs -l. How can I retrieve the same type of information about a
BTRFS file system? (E.g., last mount time, last checked time,
Hi,
(2014/11/30 12:33), Shriramana Sharma wrote:
IIUC with BtrFS while it is possible to easily undelete a file or
ordinary directory if a snapshot of the containing subvol exists, it
seems that it's not elementary to undelete a subvol itself, because
all subvols are under the root-level subvol
On 2014/12/02 07:54, MegaBrutal wrote:
Hi all,
I know there is a btrfstune, but it doesn't provide all the
functionality I'm thinking of.
For ext2/3/4 file systems I can get a bunch of useful data with
tune2fs -l. How can I retrieve the same type of information about a
BTRFS file system?
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
