Re: Post ext3 conversion problems

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:20:37AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > -95 is -EOPNOTSUPP. > > Not a common errno in btrfs. > > Most EOPNOTSUPP are related to discard and crapped fallcate/drop extents. > > Then are you using discard mount option? I did indeed have the discard mount option enabled. I

Re: [PATCH v6 1/6] fstests: common: Introduce _post_mount_hook for btrfs

At 09/15/2016 12:24 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 09:55:22AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: Introduce _post_mount_hook(), which will be executed after mounting scratch/test. It's quite useful for fs(OK, only btrfs yet, again) which needs to use ioctl other than mount option to

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 01:02:43PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > Right, well I'm vaguely curious why ZFS, as different as it is, > basically take the position that if the hardware went so batshit that > they can't unwind it on a normal mount, then an fsck probably can't > help either... they still

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:56:03PM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > 4. File Range Cloning and Out-of-band Dedupe: Similarly, work fine if the FS > is healthy. I've found issues with OOB dedup (clone/extent-same): 1. Don't dedup data that has not been committed--either call fsync() on it, or

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 08:00:44AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > To be entirely honest, both zero-log and super-recover could probably be > pretty easily integrated into btrfs check such that it detects when they > need to be run and does so. zero-log has a very well defined situation in >

Re: BTRFS constantly reports "No space left on device" even with a huge unallocated space

hi, On 09/14/2016 10:25 PM, Jeff Mahoney wrote: On 9/13/16 10:24 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: On 09/08/2016 07:02 PM, Jeff Mahoney wrote: On 9/8/16 2:49 PM, Jeff Mahoney wrote: On 9/8/16 2:24 PM, Ronan Arraes Jardim Chagas wrote: Hi all! Em Seg, 2016-09-05 às 16:49 +0800, Qu Wenruo escreveu:

Re: RAID1 availability issue[2], Hot-spare and auto-replace

Chris Murphy, Thanks for writing in detail, it makes sense.. Generally hot spare is to reduce the risk of double disk failures leading to the data lose at the data centers before the data is reconstructed again for redundancy. On 09/19/2016 01:28 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Sun, Sep 18,

Re: Post ext3 conversion problems

At 09/17/2016 04:23 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Sean Greenslade wrote: Hi, all. I've been playing around with an old laptop of mine, and I figured I'd use it as a learning / bugfinding opportunity. Its /home partition was originally ext3.

Re: RAID1 availability issue[2], Hot-spare and auto-replace

On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 2:34 AM, Anand Jain wrote: >> >> (updated the subject, was [1]) >> >>> IMO the hot-spare feature makes most sense with the raid56, >> >> >> Why. ? > > Raid56 is not

Re: RAID1 availability issue[2], Hot-spare and auto-replace

On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 2:34 AM, Anand Jain wrote: > > (updated the subject, was [1]) > >> IMO the hot-spare feature makes most sense with the raid56, > > > Why. ? Raid56 is not scalable, has less redundancy in most all configurations, rebuild impacts the entire array

Re: [RFC] Preliminary BTRFS Encryption

On 09/18/2016 04:35 AM, David Sterba wrote: On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 07:56:02PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: however here below is the quick example on the cli usage. Please try out, let me know if I have missed something. Also would like to mention that a review from the security experts is

RAID1 availability issue[2], Hot-spare and auto-replace

(updated the subject, was [1]) IMO the hot-spare feature makes most sense with the raid56, Why. ? which is stuck where it is, so we need to get it working first. We need at least one RAID which does not have the availability issue. We could achieve that with raid1, there are