Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Make btrfs-progs really compatible with any kernel version

On 2015-11-23 12:56, David Sterba wrote: On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 08:56:13PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: Btrfs-progs is a tool for the btrfs kernel and we hope latest btrfs-progs be compatible w any set of older/newer kernels. So far mkfs.btrfs and btrfs-convert sets the default features, for eg,

Re: shall distros run btrfsck on boot?

On 2015-11-24 17:26, Eric Sandeen wrote: On 11/24/15 2:38 PM, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: if the system was shut down cleanly, you're fine barring software bugs, but if it crashed, you should be running a check on the FS. Um, no... The *entire point* of having a journaling filesystem

Re: Bug/regression: Read-only mount not read-only

On 2015-11-30 11:48, Chris Mason wrote: On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 01:46:34PM +, Hugo Mills wrote: We've just had someone on IRC with a problem mounting their FS. The main problem is that they've got a corrupt log tree. That isn't the subject of this email, though. The issue I'd like

Re: shall distros run btrfsck on boot?

On 2015-11-28 11:52, Jeff Mahoney wrote: On 11/23/15 11:02 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: Hey. Short question since that came up on debian-devel. Now that btrfs check get's more and more useful, are the developers going to recommend running it periodically on boot (of course that

Re: Bug/regression: Read-only mount not read-only

On 2015-11-30 10:28, Hugo Mills wrote: On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 09:59:40AM -0500, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2015-11-28 08:46, Hugo Mills wrote: We've just had someone on IRC with a problem mounting their FS. The main problem is that they've got a corrupt log tree. That isn't the subject

Re: Bug/regression: Read-only mount not read-only

On 2015-11-28 08:46, Hugo Mills wrote: We've just had someone on IRC with a problem mounting their FS. The main problem is that they've got a corrupt log tree. That isn't the subject of this email, though. The issue I'd like to raise is that even with -oro as a point option, the FS is

Re: [RFC] Btrfs device and pool management (wip)

On 2015-11-30 15:17, Chris Murphy wrote: On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: General thoughts on this: 1. If there's a write error, we fail unconditionally right now. It would be nice to have a configurable number of retries before failing.

Re: [RFC] Btrfs device and pool management (wip)

On 2015-11-30 02:59, Anand Jain wrote: Data center systems are generally aligned with the RAS (Reliability, Availability and Serviceability) attributes. When it comes to Storage, RAS applies even more because its matter of trust. In this context, one of the primary area that a typical volume

Re: utils version and convert crash

On 2015-12-01 07:57, Gareth Pye wrote: Poking around I just noticed that btrfs de stats /data points out that 3 of my drives have some read_io_errors. I'm guessing that is a bad thing. I assume this would indicate bad hardware and would be a likely cause of system crashes. In general, given

Re: Kernel 3.19 and still "disk full" even though 'btrfs fi df" reports enough room left?

On 2015-11-20 08:27, Hugo Mills wrote: On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 08:21:31AM -0500, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2015-11-20 06:39, Dmitry Katsubo wrote: If I may add: Information for "System" System, DUP: total=32.00MiB, used=16.00KiB is also quite technical, as for end u

Re: Self-destruct of btrfs RAID6 array

On 2015-11-19 23:11, Paul Loewenstein wrote: I have just had an apparently catastrophic collapse of a large RAID6 array. I was hoping that the dual-redundancy of a RAID6 array would compensate for having no backup media large enough to back it up! Duncan already did a really good job of

Re: Kernel 3.19 and still "disk full" even though 'btrfs fi df" reports enough room left?

On 2015-11-20 06:39, Dmitry Katsubo wrote: If I may add: Information for "System" System, DUP: total=32.00MiB, used=16.00KiB is also quite technical, as for end user system = metadata (one can call it "filesystem metadata" perhaps). For simplicity the numbers can be added to "Metadata"

Re: Kernel 3.19 and still "disk full" even though 'btrfs fi df" reports enough room left?

On 2015-11-19 21:11, Duncan wrote: Austin S Hemmelgarn posted on Thu, 19 Nov 2015 07:28:34 -0500 as excerpted: (having all updates installed on Ubuntu doesn't really count in this case, they're pretty bad sometimes about not properly tracking upstream development[)] No kidding. I'm involved

Re: [PATCH v3] btrfs-progs: mkfs: Enable -d dup for single device

t_all Changelog v2->v3: 1: Fix a compile warning of "unused variable" 2: Tested "convert to dup case" with kernel patch Changelog v1->v2: 1: Fix a bug in v1 which cause no dup chunk created, found by above check command. Signed-off-by: Zhao Lei <zhao...@cn.fujitsu.com> Seeing as I forgot to reply to the previous version after testing it, I'll just reply here now that I've run this version through the same tests I did on the last one. I threw everything I could think of at it, and nothing broke, so you can add: Tested-by: Austin S. Hemmelgarn smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Possibility of a BTRFS module for Ansible.

I recently started using Ansible for orchestrating updates, backups, and other similar stuff. Working with BTRFS with it has gotten annoying really fast due to some of the hoops I have to jump through to get the btrfs command to work in a way that the shell and command modules in Ansible

Re: Kernel 3.19 and still "disk full" even though 'btrfs fi df" reports enough room left?

On 2015-11-19 13:28, Hugo Mills wrote: On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 06:35:24PM +0100, linux-btrfs.tebu...@xoxy.net wrote: Will newer kernels do the balance on their own? I think it's on the "projects" list on the wiki, so it may get done eventually. As I said above, I'm not aware of anyone

Re: Kernel 3.19 and still "disk full" even though 'btrfs fi df" reports enough room left?

On 2015-11-18 13:53, linux-btrfs.tebu...@xoxy.net wrote: P.S.: Just as user feedback: For /srv I'm using on the very same system ZFS since the very first day. With snapshots & all the fancy stuff like ZRAID-1, lz4, ... My number of Issues there: 0 Since other people have adequately answered the

Re: btrfs send reproducibly fails for a specific subvolume after sending 15 GiB, scrub reports no errors

On 2015-11-22 16:59, Nils Steinger wrote: Hi, I recently ran into a problem while trying to back up some of my btrfs subvolumes over the network: `btrfs send` works flawlessly on snapshots of most subvolumes, but keeps failing on snapshots of a certain subvolume — always after sending 15 GiB:

Re: btrfs: poor performance on deleting many large files

On 2015-11-22 20:43, Mitch Fossen wrote: Hi all, I have a btrfs setup of 4x2TB HDDs for /home in btrfs RAID0 on Ubuntu 15.10 (kernel 4.2) and btrfs-progs 4.3.1. Root is on a separate SSD also running btrfs. About 6 people use it via ssh and run simulations. One of these simulations generates a

Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] btrfs-progs: kernel based default features for mkfs

On 2015-11-23 10:57, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: Hey. On Mon, 2015-11-23 at 20:56 +0800, Anand Jain wrote: This patch disables default features based on the running kernel. Not sure if that's very realistic in practise (most people will have some distro, whose btrfsprogs version probably

Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] btrfs-progs: kernel based default features for mkfs

On 2015-11-23 11:14, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: On Mon, 2015-11-23 at 11:05 -0500, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: I would find it useful if btrfs gives a warning if it creates a filesystem which (because unsupported in the current kernel) lacks features which are considered default

Re: btrfs send reproducibly fails for a specific subvolume after sending 15 GiB, scrub reports no errors

On 2015-11-24 00:42, Duncan wrote: Nils Steinger posted on Mon, 23 Nov 2015 22:10:12 +0100 as excerpted: Do we anything about what might cause a filesystem to enter a state which `send` chokes on? I've only seen a small sample of the corrupted files before growing tired of the process and just

Re: Recommended why to use btrfs for production?

On 2016-06-03 10:11, Martin wrote: Make certain the kernel command timer value is greater than the driver error recovery timeout. The former is found in sysfs, per block device, the latter can be get and set with smartctl. Wrong configuration is common (it's actually the default) when using

Re: btrfs

On 2016-06-03 13:38, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > Hey.. > > Hm... so the overall btrfs state seems to be still pretty worrying, > doesn't it? > > - RAID5/6 seems far from being stable or even usable,... not to talk > about higher parity levels, whose earlier posted patches (e.g. >

Re: Recommended why to use btrfs for production?

On 2016-06-09 02:16, Duncan wrote: Austin S. Hemmelgarn posted on Fri, 03 Jun 2016 10:21:12 -0400 as excerpted: As far as BTRFS raid10 mode in general, there are a few things that are important to remember about it: 1. It stores exactly two copies of everything, any extra disks just add

Re: Allocator behaviour during device delete

On 2016-06-09 08:34, Brendan Hide wrote: Hey, all I noticed this odd behaviour while migrating from a 1TB spindle to SSD (in this case on a LUKS-encrypted 200GB partition) - and am curious if this behaviour I've noted below is expected or known. I figure it is a bug. Depending on the situation,

Re: btrfs device delete /dev/sdc1 /mnt/raid1 user experience

On 2016-06-07 00:02, Kai Hendry wrote: Sorry I unsubscribed from linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org since the traffic was a bit too high for me. Entirely understandable, although for what it's worth it's nowhere near as busy as some other mailing lists (linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org for example sees

Re: Recommended why to use btrfs for production?

On 2016-06-03 21:48, Chris Murphy wrote: On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 6:48 PM, Nicholas D Steeves <nstee...@gmail.com> wrote: On 3 June 2016 at 11:33, Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: On 2016-06-03 10:11, Martin wrote: Make certain the kernel command timer value is

Re: Recommended why to use btrfs for production?

On 2016-06-05 22:40, James Johnston wrote: On 06/06/2016 at 01:47, Chris Murphy wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 4:45 AM, Mladen Milinkovic wrote: On 06/03/2016 04:05 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: Make certain the kernel command timer value is greater than the driver error

Re: RAID1 vs RAID10 and best way to set up 6 disks

On 2016-06-05 16:31, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: On Sun, 2016-06-05 at 09:36 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: That's ridiculous. It isn't incorrect to refer to only 2 copies as raid1. No, if there are only two devices then not. But obviously we're talking about how btrfs does RAID1, in which

Re: btrfs

On 2016-06-03 21:51, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: On Fri, 2016-06-03 at 15:50 -0400, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: There's no point in trying to do higher parity levels if we can't get regular parity working correctly. Given the current state of things, it might be better to break even

Re: btrfs device delete /dev/sdc1 /mnt/raid1 user experience

On 2016-06-06 01:44, Kai Hendry wrote: Hi there, I planned to remove one of my disks, so that I can take it from Singapore to the UK and then re-establish another remote RAID1 store. delete is an alias of remove, so I added a new disk (devid 3) and proceeded to run: btrfs device delete

Re: btrfs device delete /dev/sdc1 /mnt/raid1 user experience

On 2016-06-07 09:52, Kai Hendry wrote: On Tue, 7 Jun 2016, at 07:10 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: Yes, although you would then need to be certain to run a balance with -dconvert=raid1 -mconvert=raid1 to clean up anything that got allocated before the new disk was added. I don't quite

Re: fsck: to repair or not to repair

On 2016-06-09 23:40, Nikolaus Rath wrote: On May 11 2016, Nikolaus Rath wrote: Hello, I recently ran btrfsck on one of my file systems, and got the following messages: checking extents checking free space cache checking fs roots root 5 inode 3149867 errors 400, nbytes

Re: fsck: to repair or not to repair

On 2016-06-10 12:50, Adam Borowski wrote: On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 08:54:36AM -0700, Nikolaus Rath wrote: On Jun 10 2016, "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: JFYI, if you've using GNU cp, you can pass '--reflink=never' to avoid it making reflinks. I would

Re: fsck: to repair or not to repair

On 2016-06-10 13:22, Adam Borowski wrote: On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 01:12:42PM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2016-06-10 12:50, Adam Borowski wrote: And, as of coreutils 8.25, the default is no reflink, with "never" not being recognized even as a way to avoid an alias. A

Re: Recommended why to use btrfs for production?

On 2016-06-03 05:49, Martin wrote: Hello, We would like to use urBackup to make laptop backups, and they mention btrfs as an option. https://www.urbackup.org/administration_manual.html#x1-8400010.6 So if we go with btrfs and we need 100TB usable space in raid6, and to have it replicated each

Re: "No space left on device" and balance doesn't work

On 2016-06-02 18:45, Henk Slager wrote: On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 3:55 PM, MegaBrutal wrote: 2016-06-02 0:22 GMT+02:00 Henk Slager : What is the kernel version used? Is the fs on a mechanical disk or SSD? What are the mount options? How old is the fs?

Re: Recommended why to use btrfs for production?

On 2016-06-03 09:31, Martin wrote: In general, avoid Ubuntu LTS versions when dealing with BTRFS, as well as most enterprise distros, they all tend to back-port patches instead of using newer kernels, which means it's functionally impossible to provide good support for them here (because we

Re: Cannot balance FS (No space left on device)

On 2016-06-10 18:39, Hans van Kranenburg wrote: On 06/11/2016 12:10 AM, ojab // wrote: On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 9:56 PM, Hans van Kranenburg wrote: You can work around it by either adding two disks (like Henk said), or by temporarily converting some chunks to

Re: Replacing drives with larger ones in a 4 drive raid1

On 2016-06-12 06:35, boli wrote: It has now been doing "btrfs device delete missing /mnt" for about 90 hours. These 90 hours seem like a rather long time, given that a rebalance/convert from 4-disk-raid5 to 4-disk-raid1 took about 20 hours months ago, and a scrub takes about 7 hours

Re: Allocator behaviour during device delete

On 2016-06-10 15:26, Henk Slager wrote: On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Brendan Hide <bren...@swiftspirit.co.za> wrote: On 06/09/2016 03:07 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2016-06-09 08:34, Brendan Hide wrote: Hey, all I noticed this odd behaviour while migrating from a 1TB s

Re: "No space left on device" and balance doesn't work

On 2016-06-01 14:30, MegaBrutal wrote: Hi all, I have a 20 GB file system and df says I have about 2,6 GB free space, yet I can't do anything on the file system because I get "No space left on device" errors. I read that balance may help to remedy the situation, but it actually doesn't. Some

Re: Hot data tracking / hybrid storage

On 2016-05-29 16:45, Ferry Toth wrote: Op Sun, 29 May 2016 12:33:06 -0600, schreef Chris Murphy: On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Holger Hoffstätte wrote: On 05/29/16 19:53, Chris Murphy wrote: But I'm skeptical of bcache using a hidden area historically for

Re: RFE: 'btrfs' tools machine readable output

On 2016-05-27 15:47, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: On 16 May 2016 at 08:39, Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: On 2016-05-16 08:14, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: It would be really helpful if the btrfs tools had a machine-readable output. With machine-readable output, t

Re: Reducing impact of periodic btrfs balance

On 2016-05-26 18:12, Graham Cobb wrote: On 19/05/16 02:33, Qu Wenruo wrote: Graham Cobb wrote on 2016/05/18 14:29 +0100: A while ago I had a "no space" problem (despite fi df, fi show and fi usage all agreeing I had over 1TB free). But this email isn't about that. As part of fixing that

Re: Is "btrfs balance start" truly asynchronous?

On 2016-06-21 07:33, Hugo Mills wrote: On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 07:24:24AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2016-06-21 04:55, Duncan wrote: Dmitry Katsubo posted on Mon, 20 Jun 2016 18:33:54 +0200 as excerpted: Dear btfs community, I have added a drive to existing raid1 btrfs volume

Re: Is "btrfs balance start" truly asynchronous?

On 2016-06-21 04:55, Duncan wrote: Dmitry Katsubo posted on Mon, 20 Jun 2016 18:33:54 +0200 as excerpted: Dear btfs community, I have added a drive to existing raid1 btrfs volume and decided to perform balancing so that data distributes "fairly" among drives. I have started "btrfs balance

[PATCH] btrfs-progs: add option to run balance as daemon

get progress information. Because it simply daemonizes prior to calling the balance ioctl, this doesn't actually need any kernel support. Signed-off-by: Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> --- This works as is, but there are two specific things I would love to eventually fix but

Re: system crash on replace

On 2016-06-23 13:44, Steven Haigh wrote: Hi all, Relative newbie to BTRFS, but long time linux user. I pass the full disks from a Xen Dom0 -> guest DomU and run BTRFS within the DomU. I've migrated my existing mdadm RAID6 to a BTRFS raid6 layout. I have a drive that threw a few UNC errors

Re: Adventures in btrfs raid5 disk recovery

On 2016-06-24 06:59, Hugo Mills wrote: On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 01:19:30PM +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Hugo Mills wrote: On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 12:52:21PM +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Hugo Mills

Re: Adventures in btrfs raid5 disk recovery

On 2016-06-24 01:20, Chris Murphy wrote: On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 8:07 PM, Zygo Blaxell wrote: With simple files changing one character with vi and gedit, I get completely different logical and physical numbers with each change, so it's clearly cowing the entire

Re: Trying to rescue my data :(

On 2016-06-24 13:05, Steven Haigh wrote: On 25/06/16 02:59, ronnie sahlberg wrote: What I have in mind here is that a file seems to get CREATED when I copy the file that crashes the system in the target directory. I'm thinking if I 'cp -an source/ target/' that it will make this somewhat easier

Re: Trying to rescue my data :(

On 2016-06-24 13:43, Steven Haigh wrote: On 25/06/16 03:40, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2016-06-24 13:05, Steven Haigh wrote: On 25/06/16 02:59, ronnie sahlberg wrote: What I have in mind here is that a file seems to get CREATED when I copy the file that crashes the system in the target

Re: Adventures in btrfs raid5 disk recovery

On 2016-06-24 13:52, Chris Murphy wrote: On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: 24.06.2016 20:06, Chris Murphy пишет: On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 3:52 AM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Hugo Mills

Re: Strange behavior when replacing device on BTRFS RAID 5 array.

On 2016-06-27 13:29, Chris Murphy wrote: On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Nick Austin wrote: On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 8:57 PM, Nick Austin wrote: sudo btrfs fi show /mnt/newdata Label: '/var/data' uuid: e4a2eb77-956e-447a-875e-4f6595a5d3ec

Re: Adventures in btrfs raid5 disk recovery

On 2016-06-27 23:17, Zygo Blaxell wrote: On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 08:39:21PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 7:52 PM, Zygo Blaxell wrote: On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 04:30:23PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: Btrfs does have something of a work around

Re: Adventures in btrfs raid5 disk recovery

On 2016-06-27 17:57, Zygo Blaxell wrote: On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:17:04AM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 5:21 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: On 2016-06-25 12:44, Chris Murphy wrote: On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn &l

Re: suspected BTRFS errors resulting in file system becoming unrecovable

On 2016-02-08 11:23, WillIam Thorne wrote: Thanks all for the help. Here’s a bit more info below. Seeing as its possibly related to the USB implementation on the pi, I have cc’d their mailing list. Glad we could be of assistance. On 25 Jan 2016, at 16:43, Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahfe

Re: BTRFS RAM requirements, RAID 6 stability/write holes and expansion questions

On 2016-02-09 15:39, Chris Murphy wrote: On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 12:36 PM, Mackenzie Meyer wrote: RAID 6 write holes? I don't even understand the nature of the write hole on Btrfs. If modification is still always COW, then either an fs block, a strip, or whole stripe

Re: Use fast device only for metadata?

On 2016-02-07 15:59, Martin Steigerwald wrote: Am Sonntag, 7. Februar 2016, 21:07:13 CET schrieb Kai Krakow: Am Sun, 07 Feb 2016 11:06:58 -0800 schrieb Nikolaus Rath : Hello, I have a large home directory on a spinning disk that I regularly synchronize between different

Re: BTRFS RAM requirements, RAID 6 stability/write holes and expansion questions

On 2016-02-10 14:06, Chris Murphy wrote: On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 6:57 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: It's an issue of torn writes in this case, not of atomicity of BTRFS. Disks can't atomically write more than sector size chunks, which means that almost all

Re: Question about a specific error.

On 2016-02-03 16:27, Hugo Mills wrote: On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 02:17:06PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 6:00 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: On 2016-02-01 15:21, Hugo Mills wrote: On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 02:44:24PM -0500, Austin S. Hemmelgarn

Re: btrfs-progs and btrfs(8) inconsistencies

On 2016-02-04 05:14, Martin Steigerwald wrote: Am Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016, 09:57:54 CET schrieb Moviuro: Although personally I like to let all the backward compatibility things go hell, but that's definitely not how things work. :( 2) End-user taste. Some end-users like such info as

Re: Use fast device only for metadata?

On 2016-02-08 08:20, Qu Wenruo wrote: On 02/08/2016 08:24 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2016-02-07 15:59, Martin Steigerwald wrote: Am Sonntag, 7. Februar 2016, 21:07:13 CET schrieb Kai Krakow: Am Sun, 07 Feb 2016 11:06:58 -0800 schrieb Nikolaus Rath <nikol...@rath.org>: Hello,

Re: USB memory sticks wear & speed: btrfs vs f2fs?

On 2016-02-09 09:08, Brendan Hide wrote: On 2/9/2016 1:13 PM, Martin wrote: How does btrfs compare to f2fs for use on (128GByte) USB memory sticks? Particularly for wearing out certain storage blocks? Does btrfs heavily use particular storage blocks that will prematurely "wear out"? (That

Re: "layout" of a six drive raid10

On 2016-02-09 02:02, Kai Krakow wrote: Am Tue, 9 Feb 2016 01:42:40 + (UTC) schrieb Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net>: Tho I'd consider benchmarking or testing, as I'm not sure btrfs raid1 on spinning rust will in practice fully saturate the gigabit Ethernet, particularly as it gets fragmented

Re: Use fast device only for metadata?

On 2016-02-08 16:44, Nikolaus Rath wrote: On Feb 07 2016, Martin Steigerwald wrote: Am Sonntag, 7. Februar 2016, 21:07:13 CET schrieb Kai Krakow: Am Sun, 07 Feb 2016 11:06:58 -0800 schrieb Nikolaus Rath : Hello, I have a large home directory on a

Re: BTRFS RAM requirements, RAID 6 stability/write holes and expansion questions

On 2016-02-11 09:14, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: On 2016-02-10 20:59, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: [...] Again, a torn write to the metadata referencing the block (stripe in this case I believe) will result in loosing anything written by the update to the stripe. I think that the order matters

Re: btrfs-progs and btrfs(8) inconsistencies

On 2016-02-04 22:11, Anand Jain wrote: If you look critically we have been using UI/CLI as API, IMO these two class of interfaces be distinct clearly. Btrfs needs library functions/APIs which is callable in popular scripting language like python. I wholeheartedly agree. At a

Re: btrfs-progs and btrfs(8) inconsistencies

On 2016-02-04 15:40, Moviuro wrote: On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 9:28 PM Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: On 2016-02-04 14:40, Chris Murphy wrote: On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:53 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: 4) Possibly get rid of the message

Re: btrfs-progs and btrfs(8) inconsistencies

On 2016-02-04 14:40, Chris Murphy wrote: On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:53 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: 4) Possibly get rid of the message on subvolume delete (It provides no useful information at all, and it has no option to not error out on non existence of a sub

Re: Question about a specific error.

On 2016-02-01 15:27, Chris Murphy wrote: On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: In the process of trying to debug issues I'm having on one of my systems with a new kernel version, I decided to do a dry run check on the root filesystem. 'btrfs

Question about a specific error.

In the process of trying to debug issues I'm having on one of my systems with a new kernel version, I decided to do a dry run check on the root filesystem. 'btrfs check' returned a bunch of lines like: root 257 inode XX errors 2000, link count wrong unresolved ref dir Y index 53

Re: Question about a specific error.

On 2016-02-01 15:21, Hugo Mills wrote: On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 02:44:24PM -0500, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: In the process of trying to debug issues I'm having on one of my systems with a new kernel version, I decided to do a dry run check on the root filesystem. 'btrfs check' returned

Re: RAID1 disk upgrade method

On 2016-01-29 17:06, Henk Slager wrote: On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 9:40 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: On 2016-01-29 15:27, Henk Slager wrote: On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: On 2016-01-28 18:01, Chris

Re: Progress indicator when (slowly) mounting a btrfs filesystem?

On 2016-02-01 09:03, Christian Rohmann wrote: Hey Chris, On 01/28/2016 12:47 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: Might be a bug, but more likely might be a lack of optimization. If it eventually mounts without errors that's a pretty good plus. Lots of file systems can't handle power failures well at all.

Re: Major HDD performance degradation on btrfs receive

On 2016-02-23 12:34, Nazar Mokrynskyi wrote: Wow, this is interesting, didn't know it. I'll probably try noatime instead:) For what it's worth, due to how it's implemented on almost every UNIX derived system in existence (including Linux), atimes are essentially useless. A majority of the

Re: loop subsystem corrupted after mounting multiple btrfs sub-volumes

On 2016-02-26 15:30, Al Viro wrote: On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 03:05:27PM -0500, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: Where is /mnt/2? It's kind of interesting, but I can't reproduce _any_ of this behavior with either ext4 or BTRFS when I manually set up the loop devices and point mount(8) at those

Re: loop subsystem corrupted after mounting multiple btrfs sub-volumes

On 2016-02-26 14:12, Stanislav Brabec wrote: Al Viro wrote: On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 11:39:11AM -0500, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: That's just it though, from what I can tell based on what I've seen and what you said above, mount(8) isn't doing things correctly in this case. If we were to do

Re: loop subsystem corrupted after mounting multiple btrfs sub-volumes

On 2016-02-26 16:45, Al Viro wrote: On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:36:50PM +0100, Stanislav Brabec wrote: It should definitely report error whenever trying -oloop on top of anything else than a file. Or at least a warning. Well, even losetup should report a warning. Keep in mind that with

Re: upgrading kernel 3.13 to 3.16

On 2016-02-26 05:50, Vytautas D wrote: Hi all, Are there any known issues upgrading btrfs running ubuntu kernel 3.13 to 3.16 ? System was once converted from ext4 using btrfs-convert ( btrfs-progs 3.17 ). The commit that worries me is following: * Btrfs: incompatible format change to remove

Re: loop subsystem corrupted after mounting multiple btrfs sub-volumes

Added linux-btrfs as this should be documented there as a known issue until it gets fixed (although I have no idea which side is the issue). On 2016-02-25 14:22, Stanislav Brabec wrote: While writing a test suite for util-linux[1], I experienced a a strange behavior of loop device: When two

Re: loop subsystem corrupted after mounting multiple btrfs sub-volumes

On 2016-02-26 10:50, Stanislav Brabec wrote: Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > Added linux-btrfs as this should be documented there as a known issue > until it gets fixed (although I have no idea which side is the issue). This is a very bad behavior, as it makes impossible to safely use

Re: loop subsystem corrupted after mounting multiple btrfs sub-volumes

On 2016-02-26 12:07, Stanislav Brabec wrote: Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > On 2016-02-26 10:50, Stanislav Brabec wrote: That's just it though, from what I can tell based on what I've seen and what you said above, mount(8) isn't doing things correctly in this case. If we were to

Re: [Docs]? Only one Subvolume with DUP (or different parameters)?

On 2016-02-16 23:49, Duncan wrote: Christian Völker posted on Tue, 16 Feb 2016 20:25:47 +0100 as excerpted: sorry for the simple question and I assume every developer here laughs about this question. Anyway: I have read loads of documents but did not find an answer for sure. Even though I

Re: Question about a specific error.

On 2016-02-01 15:21, Hugo Mills wrote: On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 02:44:24PM -0500, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: In the process of trying to debug issues I'm having on one of my systems with a new kernel version, I decided to do a dry run check on the root filesystem. 'btrfs check' returned

Re: btrfs and containers

On 2016-03-09 21:55, Duncan wrote: Austin S. Hemmelgarn posted on Wed, 09 Mar 2016 07:15:36 -0500 as excerpted: On 2016-03-08 16:28, Chris Murphy wrote: Yes, it's a bit peculiar I can create subvolumes and snapshot them, but can't 'btrfs sub list/show' It's an open question why the user

Re: Snapshots slowing system

On 2016-03-15 18:29, Peter Chant wrote: On 03/15/2016 03:52 PM, Duncan wrote: Tho even with autodefrag, given the previous relatime and snapshotting, it could be that the free-space in existing chunks is fragmented, which over time and continued usage would force higher file fragmentation

Re: New file system with same issue

On 2016-03-15 09:46, Marc Haber wrote: On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 11:52:30AM +0100, Holger Hoffstätte wrote: On 03/14/16 21:13, Marc Haber wrote: Do I need to wait for clear_cache to finish, like until I see disk usage dropping? The cache isn't that big, so you won't see a huge drop. Just use

Re: btrfs and containers

On 2016-03-08 16:28, Chris Murphy wrote: On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Liu Bo wrote: On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 04:45:09PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Tobias Hunger wrote: Hi, I have been running systemd-nspawn

Re: [PATCH] btrfs-progs: add stat check in open_ctree_fs_info

On 2016-03-17 20:38, Qu Wenruo wrote: Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote on 2016/03/17 07:22 -0400: On 2016-03-17 05:04, Qu Wenruo wrote: Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote on 2016/03/16 11:26 -0400: Currently, open_ctree_fs_info will open whatever path you pass it and try to interpret it as a BTRFS

Re: [PATCH v2] btrfs-progs: add stat check in open_ctree_fs_info

On 2016-03-18 11:17, David Sterba wrote: On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 10:03:42AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: There are other tools that have similarly poor error behavior when called incorrectly (btrfs rescue immediately comes to mind), but they don't use open_ctree_fs_info, so this doesn't

Re: [PATCH] btrfs-progs: add stat check in open_ctree_fs_info

On 2016-03-17 04:58, Duncan wrote: Austin S. Hemmelgarn posted on Wed, 16 Mar 2016 11:26:11 -0400 as excerpted: Currently, open_ctree_fs_info will open whatever path you pass it and try to interpret it as a BTRFS filesystem. While this is not nessecarily dangerous (except possibly if done

Re: Snapshots slowing system

On 2016-03-18 05:17, Duncan wrote: Pete posted on Thu, 17 Mar 2016 21:08:23 + as excerpted: 5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct 0x0033 100 100 010Pre-fail Always - 0 This one is available on ssds and spinning rust, and while it never actually hit failure mode for me on an

Re: Snapshots slowing system

On 2016-03-18 14:16, Pete wrote: On 03/18/2016 09:17 AM, Duncan wrote: So bottom line regarding that smartctl output, yeah, a new device is probably a very good idea at this point. Those smart attributes indicate either head slop or spin wobble, and some errors and command timeouts and

Re: "bad metadata" not fixed by btrfs repair

On 2016-03-28 10:37, Marc Haber wrote: Hi, I have a btrfs which btrfs check --repair doesn't fix: # btrfs check --repair /dev/mapper/fanbtr bad metadata [4425377054720, 4425377071104) crossing stripe boundary bad metadata [4425380134912, 4425380151296) crossing stripe boundary bad metadata

Re: fallocate mode flag for "unshare blocks"?

On 2016-03-30 14:27, Darrick J. Wong wrote: Hi all, Christoph and I have been working on adding reflink and CoW support to XFS recently. Since the purpose of (mode 0) fallocate is to make sure that future file writes cannot ENOSPC, I extended the XFS fallocate handler to unshare any shared

Re: Another ENOSPC situation

On 2016-04-02 01:43, Chris Murphy wrote: On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 10:55 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: Marc Haber posted on Fri, 01 Apr 2016 15:40:29 +0200 as excerpted: [4/502]mh@swivel:~$ sudo btrfs fi usage / Overall: Device size: 600.00GiB Device

Re: unable to mount btrfs pool even with -oro,recovery,degraded, unable to do 'btrfs restore'

On 2016-04-06 19:08, Chris Murphy wrote: On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Ank Ular wrote: From the ouput of 'dmesg', the section: [ 20.998071] BTRFS: device label FSgyroA devid 9 transid 625039 /dev/sdm [ 20.84] BTRFS: device label FSgyroA devid 10 transid

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