Anand Jain wrote on 02.12.2014 at 12:54:
>
>
>
> On 02/12/2014 19:14, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
>> I further investigate this issue.
>>
>> MegaBrutal, reported the following issue: doing a lvm snapshot of the
>> device of a
>> mounted btrfs fs, the new snapshot device name replaces the name of
>>
Phillip Susi wrote on 02.12.2014 at 20:19:
> On 12/1/2014 4:45 PM, Konstantin wrote:
> > The bug appears also when using mdadm RAID1 - when one of the
> > drives is detached from the array then the OS discovers it and
> > after a while (not directly, it takes several minutes)
Phillip Susi schrieb am 08.12.2014 um 15:59:
> On 12/7/2014 7:32 PM, Konstantin wrote:
> >> I'm guessing you are using metadata format 0.9 or 1.0, which put
> >> the metadata at the end of the drive and the filesystem still
> >> starts in sector zero. 1.2 is
Robert White schrieb am 08.12.2014 um 18:20:
> On 12/07/2014 04:32 PM, Konstantin wrote:
>> I know this and I'm using 0.9 on purpose. I need to boot from these
>> disks so I can't use 1.2 format as the BIOS wouldn't recognize the
>> partitions. Having an
<http://pastebin.com/TE6dSjgR>). Anyone
interested in looking into this or should I reformat this disk?
Konstantin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vge
Josef Bacik wrote on 14.11.2014 at 23:00:
> On 11/14/2014 04:51 PM, Hugo Mills wrote:
>> Chris, Josef, anyone else who's interested,
>>
>> On IRC, I've been seeing reports of two persistent unsolved
>> problems. Neither is showing up very often, but both have turned up
>> often enough to in
it is reported to be mounted by
/proc/mounts. And while 2. or even after finishing it the system was
freezing. If I got to get to 4. fast enough everything was OK, but
again, that's not what I expect from a good operating system. Any
objections?
Konstantin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: s
Pretty much all commands print out the usage message when no device is
specified:
[root@host ~]# btrfs scrub start
btrfs scrub start: too few arguments
usage: btrfs scrub start [-BdqrRf] [-c ioprio_class -n ioprio_classdata]
|
...
However, balance doesn't
[root@host ~]# btrfs balance start
ERROR
On 04/21/2016 04:02 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> On 2016-04-20 16:23, Konstantin Svist wrote:
>> Pretty much all commands print out the usage message when no device is
>> specified:
>>
>> [root@host ~]# btrfs scrub start
>> btrfs scrub start: too few argu
I'm seeing the following message on every bootup in dmesg &
/var/log/messages:
BTRFS: bdev /dev/sda2 errs: wr 0, rd 0, flush 0, corrupt 1, gen 0
I've tried running scrub and it doesn't indicate any errors occurred
Is this normal? Is something actually corrupted? Can I fix it?
Details:
[root@m
cently? Is bedup simply too out of date? What
should I use to de-duplicate across snapshots instead? Etc.?
Thanks,
Konstantin
# uname -a
Linux mireille.svist.net 4.0.8-200.fc21.x86_64 #1 SMP Fri Jul 10
21:09:54 UTC 2015 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
# btrfs --version
btrfs-progs v4.1
# btrfs fi
On 08/06/2015 04:10 AM, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
> 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 got
Dipl.-Ing. Michael Niederle gmx.at> writes:
> I reinstalled over 700 packages - plt-scheme beeing the only one failing due
> to
> the btrfs link restriction.
>
I have hit the same issue - tried to run BackupPC with a pool on btrfs
filesystem. After some time the error of "too many links (31)"
C Anthony Risinger xtfx.me> writes:
> btrfs only fails when you have hundreds of hardlinks to the same file
> in the *same* directory ... certainly not a standard use case.
>
> use snapshots to your advantage:
> - snap source
> - rsync --inplace source to target (with some other opts that have
Jan Schmidt jan-o-sch.net> writes:
> Please give the patch set "btrfs: extended inode refs" by Mark Fasheh a try
> (http://lwn.net/Articles/498226/). It eliminates the hard links per directory
> limit (introducing a rather random, artificial limit of 64k instead).
Hi, Jan!
I'm happy to see that t
I have an overnight cron job with
/sbin/fstrim -v /
/bin/bedup dedup --defrag
Every once in a while, it causes the FS to be remounted read-only.
Problem is pretty intermittent so far (aside from a few kernel revisions
a while ago).
Please advise.
Corresponding bugs:
https://bugzilla.kernel.org
On 07/13/2014 10:13 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Jul 4, 2014, at 11:00 AM, Konstantin Svist wrote:
>
>> I have an overnight cron job with
>>
>> /sbin/fstrim -v /
>> /bin/bedup dedup --defrag
> Probably not related, but these look backwards, why not reverse them?
&
ernel+0x33f/0x33f
[1.915716] [] ? gs_change+0xb/0xb
Signed-off-by: Konstantin Khlebnikov
---
fs/btrfs/inode.c | 10 +++---
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
index 15fceef..3e949bd 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/
Hello,
I have a raid5 btrfs that refuses to mount rw (ro works) and I think I'm out of
options to get it fixed.
First, this is roughly what got my filesystem corrupted:
1. I created the raid5 fs in March 2014 using the latest code available (Btrfs
3.12) on four 4TB devices (each encrypted usi
Hi list,
I accidentally formatted the existing btrfs partition today with mkfs.btrfs
Partition obviously table remained intact, while all three superblock 0,1,2
correspond to the new btrfs UUID.
The original partition was daily snapshotted and was mounted using
"compress-force=lzo,space_cache=v2
>>On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 10:36 AM Konstantin V. Gavrilenko
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi list,
>>
>> I accidentally formatted the existing btrfs partition today with mkfs.btrfs
>> Partition obviously table remained intact, while all three superblock 0,1,2
&
highly
recommend it.
Regards,
Konstantin
- Original Message -
From: "Konstantin V. Gavrilenko"
To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Sent: Sunday, 28 July, 2019 6:28:06 PM
Subject: how to recover data from formatted btrfs partition
Hi list,
I accidentally formatted the exis
=/@)
thanks,
Konstantin
Thanks for the help and clarification Qu.
I will wait for the 5.3 and see what it brings.
Best regars,
Konstantin
- Original Message -
From: "Qu Wenruo"
To: "Konstantin V. Gavrilenko" , "linux-btrfs"
Sent: Wednesday, 14 August, 2019 1:24:42 AM
Sub
Hi list,
just wondering whether it is possible to mount two subvolumes with different
mount options, i.e.
|
|- /a defaults,compress-force=lza
|
|- /b defaults,nodatacow
since, when both subvolumes are mounted, and when I change the option for one
it is changed for all of them.
thanks in a
Thanks, chattr +C is that's what I am currently using.
Also you already answered my next question, why it is not possible to set +C
attribute on the existing file :)
Yours sincerely,
Konstantin V. Gavrilenko
- Original Message -
From: "Roman Mamedov"
To: "Kons
Hello list,
I am stuck with a problem of btrfs slow performance when using compression.
when the compress-force=lzo mount flag is enabled, the performance drops to
30-40 mb/s and one of the btrfs processes utilises 100% cpu time.
mount options: btrfs
relatime,discard,autodefrag,compress=lzo,co
Thanks for the comments. Initially the system performed well, I don't have the
benchmark details written, but the compressed vs non compressed speeds were
more or less similar. However, after several weeks of usage, the system started
experiencing the described slowdowns, thus I started investig
Peter, I don't think the filefrag is showing the correct fragmentation status
of the file when the compression is used.
At least the one that is installed by default in Ubuntu 16.04 - e2fsprogs |
1.42.13-1ubuntu1
So for example, fragmentation of compressed file is 320 times more then
uncompres
- Original Message -
From: "Peter Grandi"
To: "Linux fs Btrfs"
Sent: Tuesday, 1 August, 2017 3:14:07 PM
Subject: Re: Btrfs + compression = slow performance and high cpu usage
> Peter, I don't think the filefrag is showing the correct
> fragmentation status of the file when the compressio
Could be similar issue as what I had recently, with the RAID5 and 256kb chunk
size.
please provide more information about your RAID setup.
p.s.
you can also check the tread "Btrfs + compression = slow performance and high
cpu usage"
- Original Message -
From: "Stefan Priebe - Profihost
g the data from the array and will be rebuilding it with 64 or
32 chunk size and checking the performance.
VG,
kos
- Original Message -
From: "Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG"
To: "Konstantin V. Gavrilenko"
Cc: "Marat Khalili" , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
S
unk + new parity)
2. The maximum compressed write (128k) would require the update of 1 chunk on
each of the 4 data disks + 1 parity write
Stefan what mount flags do you use?
kos
- Original Message -
From: "Roman Mamedov"
To: "Konstantin V. Gavrilenko"
Cc: &q
Hello again list. I thought I would clear the things out and describe what is
happening with my troubled RAID setup.
So having received the help from the list, I've initially run the full
defragmentation of all the data and recompressed everything with zlib.
That didn't help. Then I run the ful
da 16.00MiB
Unallocated:
/dev/sda 11.07TiB
Yours sincerely,
Konstantin V. Gavrilenko
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[ 329.234618] BTRFS info (device sda): using free space tree
[ 329.234620] BTRFS info (device sda): has skinny extents
hope that helps and thanks for your help
Yours sincerely,
Konstantin V. Gavrilenko
- Original Message -
From: "Qu Wenruo"
To: "Konstantin V. Gavrilen
36 matches
Mail list logo
