On Mon 16-01-17 22:01:18, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 03:11:06PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > From: Michal Hocko
> >
> > This reverts commit c45653c341f5c8a0ce19c8f0ad4678640849cb86 because
> > sb_getblk_gfp is not really needed as
> > sb_getblk
> >
> BTRFS uses a 2 level allocation system. At the higher level, you have
> chunks. These are just big blocks of space on the disk that get used for
> only one type of lower level allocation (Data, Metadata, or System). Data
> chunks are normally 1GB, Metadata 256MB, and System depends on the
On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 03:11:06PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko
>
> This reverts commit c45653c341f5c8a0ce19c8f0ad4678640849cb86 because
> sb_getblk_gfp is not really needed as
> sb_getblk
> __getblk_gfp
> __getblk_slow
> grow_buffers
>
On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 03:11:07PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko
>
> This reverts commit 216553c4b7f3e3e2beb4981cddca9b2027523928. Now that
> the transaction context uses memalloc_nofs_save and all allocations
> within the this context inherit GFP_NOFS
When dev-replace and scrub are run at the same time, dev-replace can be
canceled by scrub. It's quite common for btrfs/069.
While in that case, target device can be destroyed at cancel time,
leading to a user-after-free bug:
Process A (dev-replace) | Process B(scrub)
Before this patch, btrfs raid56 will keep raid56 rbio even all its IO is
done.
This may save some time allocating rbio, but it can cause deadly
use-after-free bug, for the following case:
Original fs: 4 devices RAID5
Process A | Process B
On 01/16/2017 05:10 AM, Christoph Groth wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I’ve been using a btrfs RAID1 of two hard disks since early 2012 on my
> home server. The machine has been working well overall, but recently
> some problems with the file system surfaced. Since I do have backups, I
> do not worry about
On Mon, 2017-01-16 at 13:47 +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> > > And I highly suspect if the subvolume 6403 is the RO snapshot you
> > > just removed.
> >
> > I guess there is no way to find out whether it was that snapshot,
> > is
> > there?
>
> "btrfs subvolume list" could do it."
Well that was
If btrfs-corrupt-block is in bad shape, then corruption scripts around
them won't help in long term.
Yes, documentation for btrfs-corrupt-block needs improvement. imo,
re-arranged priority will be like : (5), (1)/(3) then (4). Agree that
some corner cases, having static image is best
On 2017-01-16 10:42, Christoph Groth wrote:
Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2017-01-16 06:10, Christoph Groth wrote:
root@mim:~# btrfs fi df /
Data, RAID1: total=417.00GiB, used=344.62GiB
Data, single: total=8.00MiB, used=0.00B
System, RAID1: total=40.00MiB, used=68.00KiB
System, single:
Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2017-01-16 06:10, Christoph Groth wrote:
root@mim:~# btrfs fi df /
Data, RAID1: total=417.00GiB, used=344.62GiB
Data, single: total=8.00MiB, used=0.00B
System, RAID1: total=40.00MiB, used=68.00KiB
System, single: total=4.00MiB, used=0.00B
Metadata, RAID1:
On 2017-01-16 06:10, Christoph Groth wrote:
Hi,
I’ve been using a btrfs RAID1 of two hard disks since early 2012 on my
home server. The machine has been working well overall, but recently
some problems with the file system surfaced. Since I do have backups, I
do not worry about the data, but
Hi,
I’ve been using a btrfs RAID1 of two hard disks since early 2012
on my home server. The machine has been working well overall, but
recently some problems with the file system surfaced. Since I do
have backups, I do not worry about the data, but I post here to
better understand what
Hi.
If it can be helpful.
How to double checking the status of my filesystem, I launched ' btrfs
scrub / ' and/or ' du -sh /* '.
If the file system is corrupt, in my case, the command have aborted.
Regards.
gdb
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the
randomtech...@laposte.net posted on Sun, 15 Jan 2017 21:28:01 +0100 as
excerpted:
> Hello /all,
>
> I have some concerns about the raid 1 of BTRFS. I have encountered 114
> uncorrectable errors on the directory hosting my 'seafile-data'. Seafile
> is a software to backup the data. My 2 hard
!!! DON'T MERGE THIS PATCH !!!
When dev-replace and scrub are run at the same time, dev-replace can be
canceled. It's quite common for btrfs/069.
While in that case, target device can be destroyed, leading to a
user-after-free bug:
Process A (dev-replace) | Process B(scrub)
16 matches
Mail list logo