Re: bedup --defrag freezing

On 2015-08-05 17:45, Konstantin Svist wrote: Hi, I've been running btrfs on Fedora for a while now, with bedup --defrag running in a night-time cronjob. Last few runs seem to have gotten stuck, without possibility of even killing the process (kill -9 doesn't work) -- all I could do is hard

Re: BTRFS disaster (of my own making). Is this recoverable?

On 2015-08-05 22:13, Chris Murphy wrote: On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 6:45 PM, Paul Jones p...@pauljones.id.au wrote: Would it be possible to store this type of critical information twice on each disk, at the beginning and end? I thought BTRFS already did that, but I might be thinking of some other

Re: Why subvolume and not just volume?

On 2015-08-06 03:23, Duncan wrote: Martin posted on Wed, 05 Aug 2015 09:06:40 +0200 as excerpted: [W]hat is the penalty of a subvolume compared to a directory? From a design perspective, couldn't all directories just be subvolumes? In addition to the performance issues mentioned by others,

Re: btrfs raid1 metadata, single data

On 2015-08-07 06:40, Mike Fleetwood wrote: On 7 August 2015 at 10:47, Sjoerd sjo...@sjomar.eu wrote: While we're at it: any idea why the default for SSD's is single for meta data as described on the wiki?

Re: RAID0 wrong (raw) device?

On 2015-08-13 19:29, Gareth Pye wrote: I would have been surprised if any generic file system copes well with being mounted in several locations at once, DRBD appears to fight really hard to avoid that happening :) And yeah I'm doing the second thing, I've successfully switched which of the

Re: The performance is not as expected when used several disks on raid0.

On 2015-08-14 15:54, Chris Murphy wrote: On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Austin S Hemmelgarn ahferro...@gmail.com wrote: On 2015-08-14 14:31, Chris Murphy wrote: On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Eduardo Bach hellb...@gmail.com wrote: With btrfs the result approaches 3.5GB/s. When using

Re: The performance is not as expected when used several disks on raid0.

On 2015-08-14 14:31, Chris Murphy wrote: On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Eduardo Bach hellb...@gmail.com wrote: With btrfs the result approaches 3.5GB/s. When using mdadm+xfs the result reaches 6gb/s, which is the expected value when compared with parallel dd made on discs. mdadm with what

Re: Can't mount btrfs volume on rbd

On 2015-07-22 10:13, Gregory Farnum wrote: On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Austin S Hemmelgarn ahferro...@gmail.com wrote: On 2015-07-21 22:01, Qu Wenruo wrote: Steve Dainard wrote on 2015/07/21 14:07 -0700: I don't know if this has any bearing on the failure case, but the filesystem

Re: INFO: task btrfs-transacti:204 blocked for more than 120 seconds. (more like 8+min)

On 2015-07-23 15:12, james harvey wrote: Up to date Arch. linux kernel 4.1.2-2. Fresh O/S install 12 days ago. No where near full - 34G used on a 4.6T drive. 32GB memory. Installed bonnie++ 1.97-1. $ bonnie++ -d bonnie -m btrfs-disk -f -b I started trying to run with a -s 4G option, to

Re: Can't mount btrfs volume on rbd

On 2015-07-21 22:01, Qu Wenruo wrote: Steve Dainard wrote on 2015/07/21 14:07 -0700: I don't know if this has any bearing on the failure case, but the filesystem that I sent an image of was only ever created, subvol created, and mounted/unmounted several times. There was never any data written

[RFC] Add an option to disable automatic chunk reclamation.

Since upgrading to a kernel with the automatic chunk reclamation patches, I've noticed a number of issues with BTRFS that all seem to either be caused by, or are further exacerbated by, this 'feature'. The four big issues I've seen regarding it are: 1. TRIM/DISCARD support is broken as a

Re: slowdown after one week

On 2015-07-11 02:46, Stefan Priebe wrote: Hi, while using a 40TB btrfs partition for VM backups. I see a massive slowdown after around one week. The backup task takes usally 2-3 hours. After one week it takes 20 hours. If i umount and remount the btrfs volume it takes 2-3 hours again. Kernel

Re: Did btrfs filesystem defrag just make things worse?

On 2015-07-11 11:24, Duncan wrote: I'm not a coder, only a list regular and btrfs user, and I'm not sure on this, but there have been several reports of this nature on the list recently, and I have a theory. Maybe the devs can step in and either confirm or shoot it down. While I am a coder, I'm

BTRFS raid6 unmountable after a couple of days of usage.

So, after experiencing this same issue multiple times (on almost a dozen different kernel versions since 4.0) and ruling out the possibility of it being caused by my hardware (or at least, the RAM, SATA controller and disk drives themselves), I've decided to report it here. The general symptom

Re: BTRFS raid6 unmountable after a couple of days of usage.

On 2015-07-14 07:49, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: So, after experiencing this same issue multiple times (on almost a dozen different kernel versions since 4.0) and ruling out the possibility of it being caused by my hardware (or at least, the RAM, SATA controller and disk drives themselves

Re: BTRFS raid6 unmountable after a couple of days of usage.

On 2015-07-15 17:29, Chris Murphy wrote: On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 10:15 AM, Hugo Mills h...@carfax.org.uk wrote: There is at least one superblock on every device, usually two, and often three. Each superblock contains the virtual address of the roots of the root tree, the chunk tree and the

Re: BTRFS raid6 unmountable after a couple of days of usage.

On 2015-07-14 07:49, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: So, after experiencing this same issue multiple times (on almost a dozen different kernel versions since 4.0) and ruling out the possibility of it being caused by my hardware (or at least, the RAM, SATA controller and disk drives themselves

Re: BTRFS raid6 unmountable after a couple of days of usage.

On 2015-07-14 19:20, Chris Murphy wrote: On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 7:25 AM, Austin S Hemmelgarn ahferro...@gmail.com wrote: On 2015-07-14 07:49, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: So, after experiencing this same issue multiple times (on almost a dozen different kernel versions since 4.0) and ruling

Re: Can't mount btrfs volume on rbd

On 2015-07-21 04:38, Qu Wenruo wrote: Hi Steve, I checked your binary dump. Previously I was too focused on the assert error, but ignored some even larger bug... As for the btrfs-debug-tree output, subvol 257 and 5 are completely corrupted. Subvol 257 seems to contains a new tree root, and 5

Re: Response to Bcachefs Claims

On 2015-08-25 12:13, Roman Mamedov wrote: On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 11:22:34 -0400 (EDT) Vincent Olivier vinc...@up4.com wrote: UUID= won't work for unknown reasons (haven't got a reply on this, maybe it's the same as LABEL=). And I will use /dev/* in fstab for stability reasons. Take a look at

Re: Response to Bcachefs Claims

On 2015-08-25 12:39, Chris Murphy wrote: On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 9:22 AM, Vincent Olivier vinc...@up4.com wrote: For my own sake and other's I would like to maintain (if nobody is already working on that nor needs any help) a centralized human-readable digest of known issues that would be

Re: Btrfs tragedy: lack of space for metadata leads to loss of fs.

On 2015-08-25 10:59, Marc MERLIN wrote: On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 01:44:12PM +, Miguel Negrão wrote: Hi list, This weekend had my first btrfs horror story. system: 3.13.0-49-lowlatency, btrfs-progs v4.1.2 Sorry to say, but that's a very old kernels with many btrfs bugs, some did lead to

Re: BTRFS raid6 unmountable after a couple of days of usage.

On 2015-07-16 07:49, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2015-07-14 07:49, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: So, after experiencing this same issue multiple times (on almost a dozen different kernel versions since 4.0) and ruling out the possibility of it being caused by my hardware (or at least, the RAM

Re: Btrfs tragedy: lack of space for metadata leads to loss of fs.

On 2015-08-25 10:26, Miguel Negrão wrote: Austin S Hemmelgarn ahferroin7 at gmail.com writes: One comment I would like to make about this: I have heard numerous stories of OCZ brand SSD's having significant data corruption issues (along the lines of writes returning successful when they really

Re: Btrfs tragedy: lack of space for metadata leads to loss of fs.

On 2015-08-25 09:44, Miguel Negrão wrote: Hi list, This weekend had my first btrfs horror story. system: 3.13.0-49-lowlatency, btrfs-progs v4.1.2 A disclaimer: I know 3.13 is very out of date, but I the requirement of keeping kernel up to date clashes with my requirement of keeping a stable

Re: Response to Bcachefs Claims

On 2015-08-25 11:22, Vincent Olivier wrote: Hi, I have been using Btrfs for almost a year now with a 16x4TB RAID10 and its 8x4TB RAID0 backup (using incremental snapshots diffs). I have always tried to stay at the latest stable kernel (currently 4.1.6). But I might be moving to Fedora 22

Re: Expected behavior of bad sectors on one drive in a RAID1

On 2015-10-21 12:01, Chris Murphy wrote: On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: And I realize of course right after sending this that my other reply didn't get through because GMail refuses to send mail in plain text, no matter how hard I beat i

Re: Bad fs performance, IO freezes

seriously look into updating to a 64-bit version, your whole system should run faster, and Ubuntu has really good 32-bit compatibility in the 64-bit version (which is part of why it's popular as a support target for third party software like Steam). On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 12:44 PM, Austin S

How to replicate a Xen VM using BTRFS as the root filesystem.

I would put this on the wiki in the stuff about use cases, but I don't have a wiki account and don't really have the time or interest right now in getting one, so I'm posting it here instead. This is a rather interesting use case for send/receive that I've never seen discussed anywhere else.

Re: Bad fs performance, IO freezes

On 2015-10-29 09:03, cheater00 . wrote: Hi Liu, after talking with Holger I believe turning off COW on this FS will work to alleviate this issue. However, even with COW on, btrfs shouldn't be making my computer freeze every 5 seconds... especially while the disk is written to at mere tens of

Re: Bad fs performance, IO freezes

On 2015-10-29 11:49, cheater00 . wrote: Hi Austin, seek times are fine, but this literally freezes my computer for a split second. I've had to re-type this email twice because the freezes meant letters I typed would not arrive on the screen. USB disks are so common they should not be having

Re: Bad fs performance, IO freezes

buntu for anything that I really don't have much frame of reference regarding it beyond the fact that it's based on Debian). On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: On 2015-10-27 09:00, Henk Slager wrote: I don't have a lot experience with autode

Re: How to replicate a Xen VM using BTRFS as the root filesystem.

On 2015-10-28 22:39, Russell Coker wrote: On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 11:07:20 PM Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: Using this methodology, I can have a new Gentoo PV domain running in about half an hour, whereas it takes me at least two and a half hours (and often much longer than that) when using

Re: [PATCH 00/15] btrfs: Hot spare and Auto replace

On 2015-11-09 05:56, Anand Jain wrote: These set of patches provides btrfs hot spare and auto replace support for you review and comments. It's absolutely awesome to see that someone picked up this project, it's something that's very useful and helps BTRFS to compete with many established

Re: Btrfs progs pre-release 4.3-rc1

On 2015-11-07 08:58, Chris Murphy wrote: On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 4:14 PM, David Sterba wrote: Hi, the kernel 4.3 was released yesterday, the btrfs-progs will follow at the end of this week. I've tagged an rc1 from current devel branch. There are a lots of small invisible

Re: Process is blocked for more than 120 seconds

On 2015-11-07 07:22, Dmitry Katsubo wrote: Hi everyone, I have noticed the following in the log. The system continues to run, but I am not sure for how long it will be stable. Should I start worrying? Thanks in advance for the opinion. This just means that a process was stuck in the D state

Re: mkfs.btrfs doesn't detect SSD

On 2015-11-07 10:30, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: Hmm in fact it seems to be the kernel who wrongly, detects the type: /sys/block/sdb/queue/rotational = 1 or more like the USB/SATA bridge simply reports it wrong. Anyway, is there a way to override? Or will setting

Re: btrfs-progs send | receive error: no such file or directory

On 2015-11-08 16:28, Glen H wrote: Hi, I really enjoy the features of btrfs but send|receive is failing me so my backups are not working. I'm using "btrbk" to backup my drives (all local) and one of the three subvolumes errors out. When I run this command from the terminal it errors out:

Re: [PATCH 00/15] btrfs: Hot spare and Auto replace

On 2015-11-11 21:15, Qu Wenruo wrote: Hi Anand, Nice work. But I have some small questions about it. Anand Jain wrote on 2015/11/09 18:56 +0800: These set of patches provides btrfs hot spare and auto replace support for you review and comments. First, here below are the simple example steps

Re: Potential to loose data in case of disk failure

On 2015-11-11 15:24, Sean Greenslade wrote: On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 11:30:57AM -0600, Jim Murphy wrote: Hi all, What am I missing or misunderstanding? I have a newly purchased laptop I want/need to multi boot different OSs on. As a result after partitioning I have ended up with two

Re: illegal snapshot, cannot be deleted

On 2015-11-11 17:11, Vedran Vucic wrote: Hello, I use OpenSuse 13.2 on my Toshiba Satellite laptop. I noticed that I run out of disk space, checked documentation and I realized that there were many snapshots. I used Yast Snapper to delete snapshots. I noticed that one snapshot with number 748

Re: [PATCH v9 0/4] VFS: In-kernel copy system call

On 2015-11-11 09:53, Eric Biggers wrote: On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 04:53:30PM -0500, Anna Schumaker wrote: /* this could be relaxed once a method supports cross-fs copies */ if (inode_in->i_sb != inode_out->i_sb) return -EXDEV; This allows the same superblock but

Re: Ideas for btrfs-convert fix(or rework)

On 2015-11-12 09:09, Roman Mamedov wrote: On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 08:27:49 -0500 Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: know of (Arch and Gentoo), because the very fact that you installed a system with either one means that you are fully capable of backing up you

Re: Ideas for btrfs-convert fix(or rework)

On 2015-11-12 05:23, Vytautas D wrote: [ resending as it didnt get through. ] I got different opinion. btrfs-convert is something that brought me to btrfs. While there are other bugs to fix, someone dedicating time to fix btrfs-convert is of high interest to me. Sending right message to

Re: illegal snapshot, cannot be deleted

On 2015-11-13 11:12, Vedran Vucic wrote: Hello, I succeeded to delete illegal snapshot with command: btrfs subvolume delete /.snapshots/741/snapshot When I have done btrfs balance / -dusage=0 -musage=0 increasing value up to 4o I did not have issues. But on value 4- for-dusage= and -musage= I

Re: [PATCH v2] btrfs-progs: mkfs: Enable -d dup for single device

On 2015-11-13 09:11, Zhao Lei wrote: Current code don't support dup profile in single device, except it is in mixed mode, because following reason: 1: In some ssd with deduplication function, it have no effect. 2: For a physical device, it the entire disk broken, -d dup can not help. 3: Half

Re: Potential to loose data in case of disk failure

On 2015-11-13 09:51, Chris Murphy wrote: On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Dmitry Katsubo wrote: If so then I think this is a trap, and mkfs.btrfs should at least warn (or require --force) if two partitions are on the same drive for raid1/raid5/raid10. Does mdadm warn in the

Re: illegal snapshot, cannot be deleted

the first run fails, but subsequent ones work because the first one made some progress despite failing). On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 5:30 PM, Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: On 2015-11-13 11:12, Vedran Vucic wrote: Hello, I succeeded to delete illegal snapshot with command:

Re: illegal snapshot, cannot be deleted

On 2015-11-13 13:42, Hugo Mills wrote: On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 01:10:12PM -0500, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2015-11-13 12:30, Vedran Vucic wrote: Hello, Here are outputs of commands as you requested: btrfs fi df / Data, single: total=8.00GiB, used=7.71GiB System, DUP: total=32.00MiB

Re: illegal snapshot, cannot be deleted

On 2015-11-13 14:55, Hugo Mills wrote: On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 02:40:44PM -0500, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2015-11-13 13:42, Hugo Mills wrote: On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 01:10:12PM -0500, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2015-11-13 12:30, Vedran Vucic wrote: Hello, Here are outputs

Re: [PATCH 00/15] btrfs: Hot spare and Auto replace

On 2015-11-13 19:54, Qu Wenruo wrote: 在 2015年11月13日 18:20, Anand Jain 写道: Thanks for commenting. I'm sorry but I didn't quite see the benefit of a spare device. Aside from what Duncan said (and I happen to agree with him), there is also the fact that hot-spares are (at least

Re: More memory more jitters?

On 2015-11-14 09:11, CHENG Yuk-Pong, Daniel wrote: Hi List, I have read the Gotcha[1] page: Files with a lot of random writes can become heavily fragmented (1+ extents) causing trashing on HDDs and excessive multi-second spikes of CPU load on systems with an SSD or **large amount a

Re: [PATCH 00/15] btrfs: Hot spare and Auto replace

that I had completely forgotten about), so you can add: Tested-by: Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Potential to loose data in case of disk failure

On 2015-11-12 12:23, Dmitry Katsubo wrote: On 2015-11-12 13:47, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: That's a pretty unusual setup, so I'm not surprised there's no quick and easy answer. The best solution in my opinion would be to shuffle your partitions around and combine sda3 and sda8 into a single

Re: btrfs-replace OOM on 2GB machine

On 2015-11-13 11:15, Georg Lukas wrote: Hi, while evaluating btrfs for production use I ended up with a degraded two-disk RAID1 with one disk missing, and wanted to perform a "btrfs replace" to rebuild the RAID1. However, the replace operation causes most of my userland to be OOM-killed and

Re: BTRFS Error - Rockstor

On 2015-11-17 03:08, Scotty Edmonds wrote: Sorry, I'm not at all familiar with backtrace. General procedure to get a backtrace on a system without core files: 1. Make sure you have debugging symbols installed for the program you want the backtrace for, and ideally any libraries it uses.

Re: [PATCH 00/15] btrfs: Hot spare and Auto replace

On 2015-11-16 17:07, Anand Jain wrote: On 11/16/2015 09:41 PM, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2015-11-09 05:56, Anand Jain wrote: These set of patches provides btrfs hot spare and auto replace support for you review and comments. First, here below are the simple example steps to configure

Re: [PATCH 00/15] btrfs: Hot spare and Auto replace

On 2015-11-09 16:29, Duncan wrote: Austin S Hemmelgarn posted on Mon, 09 Nov 2015 09:09:07 -0500 as excerpted: btrfs fi show Label: none uuid: 52f170c1-725c-457d-8cfd-d57090460091 Total devices 2 FS bytes used 112.00KiB devid1 size 2.00GiB used 417.50MiB path /dev/sdc

Re: btrfs-progs send | receive error: no such file or directory

On 2015-11-09 22:11, Glen H wrote: On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 8:50 AM, Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: On 2015-11-08 16:28, Glen H wrote: Hi, I really enjoy the features of btrfs but send|receive is failing me so my backups are not working. I'm using "btrbk&qu

Re: corrupted RAID1: unsuccessful recovery / help needed

On 2015-10-30 06:58, Duncan wrote: Lukas Pirl posted on Fri, 30 Oct 2015 10:43:41 +1300 as excerpted: If there is one subvolume that contains all other (read only) snapshots and there is insufficient storage to copy them all separately: Is there an elegant way to preserve those when moving the

Re: Btrfs/RAID5 became unmountable after SATA cable fault

On 2015-11-04 23:06, Duncan wrote: (Tho I should mention, while not on zfs, I've actually had my own problems with ECC RAM too. In my case, the RAM was certified to run at speeds faster than it was actually reliable at, such that actually stored data, what the ECC protects, was fine, the data

Possible project idea

I'd been looking at the wiki page with project ideas, and I realized that there were no listed ideas that suggested the adding support for arbitrary erasure coding methods. Ceph for example has an option that allows you to set arbitrary erasure coding such that you use n devices to store the

Re: Btrfs/RAID5 became unmountable after SATA cable fault

On 2015-11-04 13:01, Janos Toth F. wrote: But the worst part is that there are some ISO files which were seemingly copied without errors but their external checksums (the one which I can calculate with md5sum and compare to the one supplied by the publisher of the ISO file) don't match! Well...

Re: trying to balance, filesystem keeps going read-only.

On 2015-11-01 09:33, Ken Long wrote: > I get a similar read-only status when I try to remove the drive from the > array.. > > Too bad the utility's function can not be slowed down.. to avoid > triggering this error... ? > Actually, there are a couple of ways you could do this. The most

Re: Unable to allocate for space usage in particular btrfs volume

On 2015-11-06 15:15, Calvin Walton wrote: On Thu, 2015-11-05 at 10:44 +, OmegaPhil wrote: On 05/11/15 04:18, Duncan wrote: OmegaPhil posted on Wed, 04 Nov 2015 21:53:09 + as excerpted: VM image files (and large database files, for the same reason) are a bit of a problem on btrfs, and

Re: RichACLs for BTRFS? (this time complete)

On 2015-10-30 05:45, Marcel Ritter wrote: Hi btrfs-developers, I just read about the possible/planned merge of richacl patches into linux kernel 4.4. s. http://lwn.net/Articles/661078/ s. http://lwn.net/Articles/661357/ Will btrfs support richacls with kernel 4.4? According to the btrfs

Re: btrfs autodefrag?

On 2015-10-19 02:19, Erkki Seppala wrote: Hugo Mills writes: It has to be disabled because if you enable it, there's a race condition: since you're overwriting existing data (rather than CoWing it), you can't update the checksums atomically. So, in the interests of

Re: [PATCH v5 8/9] vfs: Add vfs_copy_file_range() support for pagecache copies

On 2015-10-15 02:36, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 03:08:46PM -0400, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: Whether or not reflink is different from a copy is entirely a matter of who is looking at it. So what? I've been trying to explain why clone semantics matter, and I've not seen

Re: [PATCH v5 8/9] vfs: Add vfs_copy_file_range() support for pagecache copies

On 2015-10-14 14:53, Andy Lutomirski wrote: On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:38:13AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: One might argue that reflink is like copy + immediate dedupe. Not, it's not. It's all that and more,

Re: [PATCH v5 8/9] vfs: Add vfs_copy_file_range() support for pagecache copies

On 2015-10-14 14:27, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:08:40AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: So what I'm hearing is that I should drop the reflink and dedup flags and change this system call only perform a full copy (with preserving of sparseness), correct? I can make those

Re: BTRFS RAID1 behavior after one drive temporal disconection

On 2015-10-08 04:28, Pavel Pisa wrote: Hello everybody, On Monday 05 of October 2015 22:26:46 Pavel Pisa wrote: Hello everybody, ... BTRFS has recognized appearance of its partition (even that hanged from sdb5 to sde5 when disk "hotplugged" again). But it seems that RAID1 components are not

Re: Using BtrFS and backup tools for keeping two systems in sync

On 2015-10-07 22:35, Shriramana Sharma wrote: Hello. I see there are some backup tools taking advantage of BtrFS's incremental send/receive feature: https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Incremental_Backup. [BTW Ames Cornish's ButterSink (https://github.com/AmesCornish/buttersink) seems to be

Re: [PATCH v5 8/9] vfs: Add vfs_copy_file_range() support for pagecache copies

On 2015-10-16 01:38, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 08:24:51AM -0400, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: My only point with saying we shouldn't reflink by default is that there are many (unintelligent) people who will assume that since the syscall has copy in it's name, that's what

Re: [PATCH v5 8/9] vfs: Add vfs_copy_file_range() support for pagecache copies

On 2015-10-16 08:24, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 01:02:23PM +0100, P??draig Brady wrote: Right. reflinking is transparent to the user, though its consequences are not. Consequences being the possible extra latency or ENOSPC on CoW. You can get all these consequences

Re: [PATCH v5 8/9] vfs: Add vfs_copy_file_range() support for pagecache copies

On 2015-10-16 08:21, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 07:46:41AM -0400, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: I should have been specific, what I meant was that some people will assume that it actually creates a physical, on-disk byte-for-byte copy of the data. There are many people out

Re: [PATCH v5 8/9] vfs: Add vfs_copy_file_range() support for pagecache copies

On 2015-10-16 09:12, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 08:50:41AM -0400, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: Certain parts of userspace do try to reflink things instead of copying (for example, coreutils recently started doing so in mv and has had the option to do so with cp for a while

Re: btrfs autodefrag?

On 2015-10-19 12:13, Erkki Seppala wrote: Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> writes: And that is exactly the case with how things are now, when something is marked NOCOW, it has essentially zero guarantee of data consistency after a crash. Yes. In addition to the zero gua

Re: Expected behavior of bad sectors on one drive in a RAID1

On 2015-10-20 09:15, Russell Coker wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 12:00:59 AM Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: https://www.gnu.org/software/ddrescue/ At this stage I would use ddrescue or something similar to copy data from the failing disk to a fresh disk, then do a BTRFS scrub to regenerate

Re: N-Way (traditional) RAID-1 development status

On 2015-10-19 23:13, james harvey wrote: Wanted to see if there's active development on N-Way (traditional) RAID-1. By this, I mean that RAID-1 across "n" disks traditionally means "n" copies of data, but btrfs currently implements RAID-1 as "2" copies of data. So, unlike traditional RAID-1,

Re: Expected behavior of bad sectors on one drive in a RAID1

On 2015-10-20 14:54, Duncan wrote: But tho I'm a user not a dev and thus haven't actually checked the source code itself, my believe here is with Russ and disagrees with Austin, as based on what I've read both on the wiki and seen here previously, btrfs runtime (that is, not during scrub)

Re: Expected behavior of bad sectors on one drive in a RAID1

On 2015-10-20 15:20, Duncan wrote: Austin S Hemmelgarn posted on Tue, 20 Oct 2015 09:59:17 -0400 as excerpted: It is worth clarifying also that: a. While BTRFS will not return bad data in this case, it also won't automatically repair the corruption. Really? If so I think that's a bug

Re: Expected behavior of bad sectors on one drive in a RAID1

On 2015-10-20 15:59, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2015-10-20 15:20, Duncan wrote: Yes, there's some small but not infinitesimal chance the checksum may be wrong, but if there's two copies of the data and the checksum on one is wrong while the checksum on the other verifies... yes, there's

Re: Expected behavior of bad sectors on one drive in a RAID1

On 2015-10-21 07:51, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2015-10-20 15:59, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2015-10-20 15:20, Duncan wrote: Yes, there's some small but not infinitesimal chance the checksum may be wrong, but if there's two copies of the data and the checksum on one is wrong while

Re: System completely unresponsive after `btrfs balance start -dconvert=raid0 /` and `btrfs fi show /`

On 2015-10-14 05:13, Hugo Mills wrote: On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 05:08:17AM +, Duncan wrote: Carmine Paolino posted on Tue, 13 Oct 2015 23:21:49 +0200 as excerpted: I have an home server with 3 hard drives that I added to the same btrfs filesystem. Several hours ago I run `btrfs balance

Re: Expected behavior of bad sectors on one drive in a RAID1

On 2015-10-20 00:45, Russell Coker wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 03:16:15 PM james harvey wrote: sda appears to be going bad, with my low threshold of "going bad", and will be replaced ASAP. It just developed 16 reallocated sectors, and has 40 current pending sectors. I'm currently running a

Re: BTRFS RAID1 behavior after one drive temporal disconection

On 2015-10-08 18:22, Hugo Mills wrote: On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 12:16:43AM +0200, Pavel Pisa wrote: Hello Hugo, On Thursday 08 of October 2015 23:13:52 Hugo Mills wrote: On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 07:47:33AM -0400, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2015-10-08 04:28, Pavel Pisa wrote: I go to use

Re: size 2.73TiB used 240.97GiB after balance

On 2015-07-08 15:06, Donald Pearson wrote: I wouldn't use dd. I would use recover to get the data if at all possible, then you can experiment with try to fix the degraded condition live. If you have any chance of getting data from the pool, you reduce that chance every time you make a change.

Re: size 2.73TiB used 240.97GiB after balance

On 2015-07-08 18:16, Donald Pearson wrote: Basically I wouldn't trust the drive that's already showing signs of failure to survive a dd. It isn't completely full, so the recover is less load. That's just the way I see it. But I see your point of trying to get drive images now to hedge against

Re: btrfs subvolume clone or fork (btrfs-progs feature request)

On 2015-07-09 02:22, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote: On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 8:20 AM, james harvey jamespharve...@gmail.com wrote: Request for new btrfs subvolume subcommand: clone or fork [-i qgroupid] source [dest]name Create a subvolume name in dest, which is a clone or fork of source. If

Re: btrfs subvolume clone or fork (btrfs-progs feature request)

On 2015-07-09 08:41, Sander wrote: Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote (ao): What's wrong with btrfs subvolume snapshot? Well, personally I would say the fact that once something is tagged as a snapshot, you can't change it to a regular subvolume without doing a non-incremental send/receive

Re: btrfs subvolume clone or fork (btrfs-progs feature request)

On 2015-07-09 14:33, David Sterba wrote: On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 08:48:00AM -0400, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2015-07-09 08:41, Sander wrote: Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote (ao): What's wrong with btrfs subvolume snapshot? Well, personally I would say the fact that once something is tagged

Re: [PATCH 00/15] btrfs: Hot spare and Auto replace

On 2015-11-13 05:17, Anand Jain wrote: Thanks for the comments. Sorry for the delay. Trying to find out if there is any pending concerns... FWIW, I'm planning on setting up a VM to test this over the weekend (I would have already, but I've been kind of busy at work this week), so I'll

Re: Understanding BTRFS storage

On 2015-08-28 05:47, Duncan wrote: Austin S Hemmelgarn posted on Thu, 27 Aug 2015 08:01:58 -0400 as excerpted: Someone (IIRC it was Austin H) posted what I thought was an extremely good setup, a few weeks ago. Create two (or more) mdraid0s, and put btrfs raid1 (or raid5/6 when it's a bit more

Re: BTRFS errors on fresh filesystem

On 2015-08-28 11:10, J - wrote: I have noticed a BTRFS error mentioned in two consecutive identical entries in my kernel log: BTRFS error (device sda2): bad extent! em: [0 0] passed [0 4096] sda2 contains a btrfs with skinny extents has been created a few days ago and contains a few

Re: Understanding BTRFS storage

On 2015-08-28 11:42, Chris Murphy wrote: On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 3:35 AM, Hugo Mills h...@carfax.org.uk wrote: On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 10:50:12AM +0200, George Duffield wrote: Running a traditional raid5 array of that size is statistically guaranteed to fail in the event of a rebuild.

Fwd: Re: Response to Bcachefs Claims

-ID: capf83mt9gpilbp_uguywvep2unjixwlqxnkaynhs28j0ic-...@mail.gmail.com Subject: Re: Response to Bcachefs Claims From: Suman Chakravartula su...@rockstor.com To: Austin S Hemmelgarn ahferro...@gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Sonic-CAuth

Re: Understanding BTRFS storage

On 2015-08-26 04:56, George Duffield wrote: Hi Is there a more comprehensive discussion/ documentation of Btrfs features than is referenced in https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page...I'd love to learn more but it seems there's no readily available authoritative documentation out

Re: Understanding BTRFS storage

On 2015-08-26 07:50, Roman Mamedov wrote: On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 10:56:03 +0200 George Duffield forumscollect...@gmail.com wrote: I'm looking to switch from a 5x3TB mdadm raid5 array to a Btrfs based solution that will involve duplicating a data store on a second machine for backup purposes (the

Re: BTRFS raid6 unmountable after a couple of days of usage.

On 2015-07-16 07:41, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2015-07-15 17:29, Chris Murphy wrote: On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 10:15 AM, Hugo Mills h...@carfax.org.uk wrote: There is at least one superblock on every device, usually two, and often three. Each superblock contains the virtual address

Re: btrfs send/receive freezes a system

On 2015-08-26 08:04, MASAKI Yuhsuke wrote: Hi Duncan, thank you for your reply. I understood it is guessed from development between 3.10 and 4.1. I will try to replace CentOS 7 Receiver with Manjaro (same as sender) and sync. I will report the result here anyway. If it doesn't work, I report

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >