Unclear error message when running btrfs check on a mountpoint

ile as argument and give a clearer error message in this case? Thanks, -- Martin -- 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

Re: behavior of BTRFS in relation to inodes when moving/copying files between filesystems

give much of a > benefit unless the target file is nocow. > > (Also I thought only certain other utilities had supercow powers, but well > BTRFS seems to have them as well :) Anyone any idea? Thanks, -- Martin -- 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

Re: [4.3-rc4] scrubbing aborts before finishing

Am Donnerstag, 22. Oktober 2015, 10:41:15 CET schrieb Martin Steigerwald: > I get this: > > merkaba:~> btrfs scrub status -d / > scrub status for […] > scrub device /dev/mapper/sata-debian (id 1) history > scrub started at Thu Oct 22 10:05:49 2015 and was abor

behavior of BTRFS in relation to inodes when moving/copying files between filesystems

– but it wouldn´t give much of a benefit unless the target file is nocow. (Also I thought only certain other utilities had supercow powers, but well BTRFS seems to have them as well :) Thanks, -- Martin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the

Re: Defrag operations sometimes don't work.

--- eric@europa:~/filefrag/2015-07-09$ filefrag /home/.ecryptfs/eric/.Private/ECRYPTFS_FNEK_ENCRYPTED.FWbZ4j3re5lQYkQsG5Uh […] Nice, someone like me searching the correspondending file name in ecryptfs for defragmenting :) Thanks, -- Martin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send

Re: Defrag operations sometimes don't work.

Am Samstag, 11. Juli 2015, 10:40:29 schrieb erp...@gmail.com: On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 4:12 AM, Martin Steigerwald mar...@lichtvoll.de wrote: Always do sync after a btrfs fi defrag and before measuring with filefrag. The kernel may not have written everything. I have seen this repeatedly

Crash when trying to start a replace on missing device

4.55TiB used 7.38GiB path /dev/sde *** Some devices missing btrfs fi df Data, RAID5: total=21.00GiB, used=18.30GiB System, RAID5: total=96.00MiB, used=16.00KiB Metadata, RAID5: total=1.03GiB, used=19.59MiB GlobalReserve, single: total=16.00MiB, used=0.00B dmesg attached. Thanks, Martin

Re: FYIO: A rant about btrfs

nd performance is not a top priority at this stage but I don't see why it shouldn't perform at least equally good as ZFS/F2FS on the same workloads. Is looking at performance problems on the development roadmap? regards Martin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-

Re: FYIO: A rant about btrfs

randomly like some common ones do. But take care about the hard disk write cache, which should be off. http://xfs.org/index.php/ XFS_FAQ#Q._Should_barriers_be_enabled_with_storage_which_has_a_persistent_write_cache. 3F Thanks, -- Martin -- 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

Re: raid5 + HDFS

ation in btrfs - but I'm lacking the bigger picture and the explicit use case for btrfs in this setup? hops.io looks very interesting through. Would be great if you could clarify your ideas a little bit. HTH & regards Martin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lin

Incremental btrfs send/receive fails if file is unlinked and cloned afterwards

Hi, the commit "Btrfs: incremental send, check if orphanized dir inode needs delayed rename" causes incremental send/receive to fail if a file is unlinked and then reflinked to the same location from the parent snapshot. An xfstest reproducing the issue is attached. Regards, M

Bug Report: btrfs hangs / freezes on 4.3

_need_killpriv+0x33/0x50 [414675.259029] [] btrfs_file_write_iter+0x171/0x560 [btrfs] [414675.259035] [] __vfs_write+0xa7/0xf0 [414675.259040] [] vfs_write+0xa6/0x1a0 [414675.259046] [] ? __do_page_fault+0x1b4/0x400 [414675.259051] [] SyS_write+0x46/0xa0 [414675.259055] [] entry_SYSCAL

safety of journal based fs (was: Re: still kworker at 100% cpu…)

Qu Wenruo: > Martin Steigerwald wrote on 2015/12/14 09:18 +0100: > > Am Montag, 14. Dezember 2015, 10:08:16 CET schrieb Qu Wenruo: > >> Martin Steigerwald wrote on 2015/12/13 23:35 +0100: […] > >>> I am seriously consider to switch to XFS for my production laptop agai

Still not production ready

on ready* filesystem. I am seriously consider to switch to XFS for my production laptop again. Cause I never saw any of these free space issues with any of the XFS or Ext4 filesystems I used in the last 10 years. Thanks, -- Martin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "un

Re: [4.3-rc4] scrubbing aborts before finishing (SOLVED)

Am Mittwoch, 16. Dezember 2015, 00:18:53 CET schrieb Martin Steigerwald: > Am Montag, 14. Dezember 2015, 08:59:59 CET schrieb Martin Steigerwald: > > Am Mittwoch, 25. November 2015, 16:35:39 CET schrieben Sie: > > > Am Samstag, 31. Oktober 2015, 12:10:37 CET schrieb Martin Steig

Re: Still not production ready

Am Dienstag, 15. Dezember 2015, 16:59:58 CET schrieb Chris Mason: > On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:08:16AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > Martin Steigerwald wrote on 2015/12/13 23:35 +0100: > > >Hi! > > > > > >For me it is still not production ready. > > > &

Re: [4.3-rc4] scrubbing aborts before finishing (probably solved)

Am Montag, 14. Dezember 2015, 08:59:59 CET schrieb Martin Steigerwald: > Am Mittwoch, 25. November 2015, 16:35:39 CET schrieben Sie: > > Am Samstag, 31. Oktober 2015, 12:10:37 CET schrieb Martin Steigerwald: > > > Am Donnerstag, 22. Oktober 2015, 10:41:15 CET schrieb Martin Stei

still kworker at 100% cpu in all of device size allocated with chunks situations with write load (was: Re: Still not production ready)

Am Sonntag, 13. Dezember 2015, 15:19:14 CET schrieb Marc MERLIN: > On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 11:35:08PM +0100, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > Hi! > > > > For me it is still not production ready. Again I ran into: > > > > btrfs kworker thread uses up 100%

Re: [4.3-rc4] scrubbing aborts before finishing

Am Mittwoch, 25. November 2015, 16:35:39 CET schrieben Sie: > Am Samstag, 31. Oktober 2015, 12:10:37 CET schrieb Martin Steigerwald: > > Am Donnerstag, 22. Oktober 2015, 10:41:15 CET schrieb Martin Steigerwald: > > > I get this: > > > > > > merkaba:~> btr

still kworker at 100% cpu in all of device size allocated with chunks situations with write load (was: Re: Still not production ready)

Am Montag, 14. Dezember 2015, 10:08:16 CET schrieb Qu Wenruo: > Martin Steigerwald wrote on 2015/12/13 23:35 +0100: > > Hi! > > > > For me it is still not production ready. > > Yes, this is the *FACT* and not everyone has a good reason to deny it. > > > Agai

Re: still kworker at 100% cpu in all of device size allocated with chunks situations with write load

Hi Qu. I reply to the journal fs things in a mail with a different subject. Am Montag, 14. Dezember 2015, 16:48:58 CET schrieb Qu Wenruo: > Martin Steigerwald wrote on 2015/12/14 09:18 +0100: > > Am Montag, 14. Dezember 2015, 10:08:16 CET schrieb Qu Wenruo: > >> Martin Steiger

Re: btrfs scrub failing

Am Sonntag, 3. Januar 2016, 17:33:03 CET schrieb John Center: > Hi Martin, Hi John, > One thing I forgot, I did run btrfs-image & it appears to have successfully > completed afaict. Do you think it would be useful to someone for future > troubleshooting? I leave that to th

Re: btrfs scrub failing

try to use btrfs restore for restoring them. 5) Then, if you made sure you have an up-to-date backup run btrfs --repair Also watch out for other guidance you may receive her. My approach is based on what I would do. I never had the need to repair a BTRFS filesystem so far. Thanks, -- Martin -- 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

Re: [PATCH] BTRFS: Adds the files and options needed for Hybrid Storage

n SSD to use for hot data. Or is this something different? Happy New Year and thanks, Martin > Signed-off-by: Sanidhya Solanki <jpage.l...@gmail.com> > --- > fs/btrfs/Makefile | 2 +- > fs/btrfs/cache.c | 58 > +++ 2 files change

Re: btrfs scrub failing

Am Samstag, 2. Januar 2016, 11:35:51 CET schrieb Martin Steigerwald: > Am Freitag, 1. Januar 2016, 20:04:43 CET schrieb John Center: > > Hi Duncan, > > > > On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > > > John Center poste

Re: Btrfs Check - "type mismatch with chunk"

un a scrub again after the repair attempt. And if its good I will play it safe and redo the filesystem from scratch. It may have been I used a mkfs.btrfs from 4.1.1 for creating it. Would be good if it stored the version of the tool that created the fs into the fs itself to be able to know

Re: btrfs scrub failing

Am Freitag, 1. Januar 2016, 13:20:49 CET schrieb John Center: > > On Jan 1, 2016, at 12:41 PM, Martin Steigerwald <mar...@lichtvoll.de> > > wrote: > > Am Freitag, 1. Januar 2016, 11:41:20 CET schrieb John Center: […] > >>> On Jan 1, 2016, at 12:55 AM,

Re: btrfs scrub failing

Am Samstag, 2. Januar 2016, 18:27:16 CET schrieb John Center: > Hi Martin, > > > On Jan 2, 2016, at 6:41 AM, Martin Steigerwald <mar...@lichtvoll.de> > > wrote: > > Am Samstag, 2. Januar 2016, 11:35:51 CET schrieb Martin Steigerwald: > >> Am Freitag, 1.

Re: btrfs scrub failing

Am Sonntag, 3. Januar 2016, 02:02:12 CET schrieb John Center: > Hi Martin & Duncan, Hi John, > Since I had a backup of my data, I first ran "btrfs check -p" on the > unmounted array. It first found 3 parent transid errors: > > root@ubuntu:~# btrfs check -p /dev/

Re: Unrecoverable fs corruption?

It refuses to rm -rf . or rm -rf .. and rm -rf / (unless you give special argument, but there is not much it can do about rm -r /*, as the shell expands this before handing it to the command. Thanks, -- Martin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bt

Re: Btrfs Check - "type mismatch with chunk"

be wiped and recreated with a mkfs.btrfs > without the bug, to fix. btrfs check from btrfs tools 4.3.1 on kernel 4.4-rc6 has not been able to fix these errors and I recreated the filesystem that had the errors. I think I mentioned it also in this thread. Thanks, -- Martin -- To unsubscribe

still kworker at 100% cpu in all of device size allocated with chunks situations with write load

0:08:16AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > >> Martin Steigerwald wrote on 2015/12/13 23:35 +0100: > >>> Hi! > >>> > >>> For me it is still not production ready. > >> > >> Yes, this is the *FACT* and not everyone has a good reason to deny it. >

Re: btrfs scrub failing

ed in another thread here, until I used 4.4 kernel. With 4.3 kernel scrub also didn´t work. I didn´t use the debug options you used above and I am not sure whether I had this scrub issue with 4.2 already, so I am not sure it has been the same issue. But you may need to run 4.4 kernel in order to

Re: btrfs und lvm-cache?

nsists of a patch set to add hot data tracking to VFS and a patch set for adding support in BTRFS. But I didn´t see anything of these in quite some time. Happy christmas, -- Martin -- 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

Re: shall distros run btrfsck on boot?

ardware a fsck run can report bogus data, i.e. problems where they are none or vice versa. If I suspect defect memory or controller I would check the device on different hardware only. Especially on attempts to repair any possible issues. -- Martin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the

Re: [4.3-rc4] scrubbing aborts before finishing

Am Samstag, 31. Oktober 2015, 12:10:37 CET schrieb Martin Steigerwald: > Am Donnerstag, 22. Oktober 2015, 10:41:15 CET schrieb Martin Steigerwald: > > I get this: > > > > merkaba:~> btrfs scrub status -d / > > scrub status for […] > > scrub device /d

Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/12] Enhanced file stat system call

Am Dienstag, 24. November 2015, 00:13:08 CET schrieb Christoph Hellwig: > On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 05:19:31PM +0100, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > I know its mostly relevant for just for FAT32, but on any account rather > > than trying to write 4 GiB and then file, it would be

Re: dd on wrong device, 1.9 GiB from the beginning has been overwritten, how to restore partition?

.btrfs, mkfs.xfs and so on. I´d like that, but that would be a suggestions for the coreutils people. Yes, Unix is for people who know what they are doing… unless they don´t. And in the end even one of the most experienced admin could make such a mistake. Goodnight, -- Martin -- To unsub

Re: btrfs-progs and btrfs(8) inconsistencies

o be the case with storage related commands in GNU/Linux. I don´t have a clear oppinion about it other than I´d like to see some standard too. coreutils / util-linux both them to have some kind of standard, although not necessarily the same standard I bet. And I am not sure whether it is docum

Re: Use fast device only for metadata?

hink it doesn´t need to recreate the filesystem. I wonder what happened to the VFS hot data tracking stuff patchset floating around here quite some time ago. -- Martin -- 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

Re: Again, no space left on device while rebalancing and recipe doesnt work

72GiB 32 GiB chunks allocated, only 3,72 GiB used. Maybe that way you can gain more free space to have a full balance run. Also note that it is not necessary to do a full balance in case everything works okayish. Thanks, -- Martin -- 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

Re: btrfs send/receive using generation number as source

On Freitag, 8. April 2016 11:12:54 CEST Hugo Mills wrote: > On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 01:01:03PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > Hello! > > > > As far as I understood, for differential btrfs send/receive – I didn´t use > > it yet – I need to keep a snapshot on the

btrfs send/receive using generation number as source

that generation number + the destination snapshots. Well, or get larger SSDs or get rid of some data on them. Thanks, -- Martin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo inf

btrfs fi du ERROR

= 1 write(1, " Total Exclusive Set shar"..., 3161) = 3161 exit_group(1) = ? +++ exited with 1 +++ Read-only snapshots give Unknown error -1 too, this time EROFS. Is it expected? -- Martin Volf -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body o

Re: unable to mount btrfs partition, please help :(

once about fs benchmarks running faster in Virtualbox than on the physical system, which may point at an at least incomplete fsync() implementation for writing into Virtualbox image files. I never found any proof of this nor did I specificially seeked to research it. So it may be

kworker threads may be working saner now instead of using 100% of a CPU core for minutes (Re: Still not production ready)

On Sonntag, 13. Dezember 2015 23:35:08 CET Martin Steigerwald wrote: > Hi! > > For me it is still not production ready. Again I ran into: > > btrfs kworker thread uses up 100% of a Sandybridge core for minutes on > random write into big file > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/sho

Re: [RFC] Experimental btrfs encryption

hing that does file name encryption like ecryptfs or the Ext4/F2FS approach, but if the subvolume specifics of BTRFS can be used to encrypted more of the metadata then even better! Thanks, -- Martin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a me

Re: unable to mount btrfs partition, please help :(

image I use 4.3 backport kernel successfully on two server VMs which use BTRFS. [1] http://backports.debian.org/ Thx, -- Martin -- 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

Re: [PATCH] btrfs-progs: fix fi du so it works in more cases

Works for me, thanks. Martin Volf On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: > Currently, btrfs fi du uses open_file_or_dir(), which tries to open > it's argument with o_RDWR. Because of POSIX semantics, this fails for > non-root user

Re: New file system with same issue (was: Again, no space left on device while rebalancing and recipe doesnt work)

size back to max. > > It doesn't: > [20/518]mh@fan:~$ sudo btrfs filesystem resize 300G /media/tempdisk/ > Resize '/media/tempdisk/' of '300G' > [22/520]mh@fan:~$ sudo btrfs check /media/tempdisk/ > Superblock bytenr is larger than device size > Couldn't open file system > [23

Re: csum errors in VirtualBox VDI files

ands > like "du" and "df" hang until reboot. > > I've now restored the file from backup but it happens over and over > again. Just as another data point I am irregularily using a VM with Virtualbox in a VDI file on a BTRFS RAID 1 on two SSDs and had no such issue

Re: ENOSPC while creating snapshot

On 5.3.2016 06:34, Duncan wrote: Chris Murphy posted on Fri, 04 Mar 2016 19:46:34 -0700 as excerpted: On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Martin Mlynář <ne...@smoula.net> wrote: [Mount options line split/wrapped for followup] rw,noatime,nodatasum,nodatacow,ssd,discard,space

Re: ENOSPC while creating snapshot

nk you all for your help. Now I'm on 4.5.0-rc6-mainline with pointed patch and issue seems to be resolved. Thank you for your time! -- Martin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordo

Re: btrfs forced readonly + errno=-28 No space left

Dne 22.4.2016 v 0:44 Chris Murphy napsal(a): > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 6:53 AM, Martin Svec <martin.s...@zoner.cz> wrote: >> Hello, >> >> we use btrfs subvolumes for rsync-based backups. During backups btrfs often >> fails with "No space >> left&qu

Re: btrfs forced readonly + errno=-28 No space left

Dne 22.4.2016 v 23:00 Nicholas D Steeves napsal(a): > On 21 April 2016 at 18:44, Chris Murphy <li...@colorremedies.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 6:53 AM, Martin Svec <martin.s...@zoner.cz> wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> we use btrfs subvolum

Re: RFE: 'btrfs' tools machine readable output

o desktop environments wishing to make use of snapshot functionality or advanced disk usage reporting for example can easily make use of it without calling external commands. Of course it would likely me more effort than to implement structured output. Thanks, -- Martin -- To unsubscribe from t

btrfs forced readonly + errno=-28 No space left

ultiple times: https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-btrfs%40vger.kernel.org/msg48061.html https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-btrfs%40vger.kernel.org/msg47355.html Best regards Martin Svec -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to

Re: Send-recieve performance

snapshotting reducing metadata workload. Then you could create read-only snapshots from the UrBackup sub-volumes and use e.g. buttersink to copy those to another btrfs. So maybe try that? Regards, Martin smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: BTRFS for OLTP Databases

d the properly snapshotted state, so I see the advantages more with usability and taking care of corner cases automatically. Regards, Martin Raiber smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: BTRFS for OLTP Databases

On 08.02.2017 14:08 Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > On 2017-02-08 07:14, Martin Raiber wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 08.02.2017 03:11 Peter Zaitsev wrote: >>> Out of curiosity, I see one problem here: >>> If you're doing snapshots of the live database, each snap

Re: Root volume (ID 5) in deleting state

On 13.2.2017 21:03, Hans van Kranenburg wrote: On 02/13/2017 12:26 PM, Martin Mlynář wrote: I've currently run into strange problem with BTRFS. I'm using it as my daily driver as root FS. Nothing complicated, just few subvolumes and incremental backups using btrbk. Now I've noticed that my

Re: Root volume (ID 5) in deleting state

It looks you're right! On a different machine: # btrfs sub list / | grep -v lxc ID 327 gen 1959587 top level 5 path mnt/reaver ID 498 gen 593655 top level 5 path var/lib/machines # btrfs sub list / -d | wc -l 0 Ok, apparently it's a regression in one of the latest versions then. But, it

Root volume (ID 5) in deleting state

1 size 200.00GiB used 200.00GiB path /dev/mapper/vg0-btrfsroot Thank you for your time, Best regards -- Martin Mlynář -- 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.

Re: kworker threads may be working saner now instead of using 100% of a CPU core for minutes (Re: Still not production ready)

Am Mittwoch, 7. September 2016, 11:53:04 CEST schrieb Christian Rohmann: > On 03/20/2016 12:24 PM, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > >> btrfs kworker thread uses up 100% of a Sandybridge core for minutes on > >> > >> > random write into big file > >> > http

Re: Small fs

Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 19:46:32 CEST schrieb Hugo Mills: > On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 09:13:28PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 16:44:23 CEST schrieb Duncan: > > > * Metadata, and thus mixed-bg, defaults to DUP mode on a single-devic

compress=lzo safe to use? (was: Re: Trying to rescue my data :()

e lays a > common problem? Hmm… I found this from being referred to by reading Debian wiki page on BTRFS¹. I use compress=lzo on BTRFS RAID 1 since April 2014 and I never found an issue. Steven, your filesystem wasn´t RAID 1 but RAID 5 or 6? I just want to assess whether using compress=lz

Re: Small fs

t be equal, and the block group types must match. Note versions up to 4.2.x forced the mixed mode for devices smaller than 1GiB. This has been removed in 4.3+ as it caused some usability issues. Thanks -- Martin -- To unsubsc

Re: Small fs

) I don´t get this part. That is just *metadata* being duplicated, not the actual *data* inside the files. Or am I missing something here? -- Martin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kerne

Re: Is stability a joke?

Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 13:02:21 CEST schrieb Hugo Mills: > On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 02:39:14PM +0200, Waxhead wrote: > > Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > >Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 13:43:59 CEST schrieb Martin Steigerwald: > > >>>>Thing is: This just

Re: Is stability a joke?

Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 16:54:25 CEST schrieben Sie: > Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 14:39:14 CEST schrieb Waxhead: > > Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > > Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 13:43:59 CEST schrieb Martin Steigerwald: > > >>>>> The Nouv

Re: Is stability a joke?

Thanks, > > My intention was not to be hostile and if my response sound a bit harsh > for you then by all means I do apologize for that. Okay, maybe I read something into your mail that you didn´t intend to put there. Sorry. Let us focus on the constructive way to move forward wit

Re: Is stability a joke?

Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 14:39:14 CEST schrieb Waxhead: > Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 13:43:59 CEST schrieb Martin Steigerwald: > >>>>> The Nouveau graphics driver have a nice feature matrix on it's webpage > >>>&

Re: Small fs

Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 21:56:07 CEST schrieb Imran Geriskovan: > On 9/11/16, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > > Martin Steigerwald posted on Sun, 11 Sep 2016 17:32:44 +0200 as excerpted: > >>> What is the smallest recommended fs size for btrfs? &

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

the kernel version the page talks about. Everyone who updates the page can update the version within a second. -- Martin -- 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

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

Am Montag, 12. September 2016, 23:21:09 CEST schrieb Pasi Kärkkäinen: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 09:57:17PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > Am Montag, 12. September 2016, 18:27:47 CEST schrieb David Sterba: > > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 04:27:14PM +0200, David Sterba

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

Am Dienstag, 13. September 2016, 07:28:38 CEST schrieb Austin S. Hemmelgarn: > On 2016-09-12 16:44, Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Martin Steigerwald <mar...@lichtvoll.de> wrote: > >> Am Montag, 12. September 2016, 23:21:09 CEST schrieb Pasi Kärkk

Re: stability matrix

ts a 3.10 one), XFS from kernel this.that, including new incompat CRC disk format and the need to also upgrade xfsprogs in lockstep, and this and that from kernel this.that and so on. Frankenstein as an association comes to my mind, but I bet RHEL kernel engineers know what they are doing. -- Mar

Re: Is stability a joke?

Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 13:21:30 CEST schrieb Zoiled: > Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 10:55:21 CEST schrieb Waxhead: > >> I have been following BTRFS for years and have recently been starting to > >> use BTRFS more and more and

Re: Is stability a joke?

Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 13:43:59 CEST schrieb Martin Steigerwald: > > >> The Nouveau graphics driver have a nice feature matrix on it's webpage > > >> and I think that BTRFS perhaps should consider doing something like > > >> that > > >>

Re: Is stability a joke?

ork with the feature matrix already there and fill in information about stability. I think it makes sense tough to discuss first on how to do it with still keeping it manageable. Thanks, -- Martin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the

Re: csum failed during copy/compare

, Oct 10, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Martin Dev <mrturtle...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hey everyone, > > I work for system verification of SSDs and we've recently come up > against an issue with BTRFS on Ubuntu 16.04. We have a framework which > follows the following steps: > > Ge

Re: Is stability a joke?

Am Donnerstag, 15. September 2016, 07:55:36 CEST schrieb Kai Krakow: > Am Mon, 12 Sep 2016 08:20:20 -0400 > > schrieb "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" <ahferro...@gmail.com>: > > On 2016-09-11 09:02, Hugo Mills wrote: > > > On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 02:39:14PM +0200,

Re: Is stability a joke?

* you can use footnotes or further explainations regarding features that need them with a headline per feature below the table and a link to it from within the table. Thank you! -- Martin -- 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

Re: csum failed during copy/compare

SATA trace shows device behaving correctly. btrfs repair --ignore-errors /dev/sda2 /tmp/ will yield files that are not verifiable by FIO, and differ from the original files on the internal drive that they were copied from at the failing offset. On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 3:39 PM, Martin Dev

Re: csum failed during copy/compare

; On Mon, 10 Oct 2016 10:44:39 +0100 >> Martin Dev <mrturtle...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I work for system verification of SSDs and we've recently come up >>> against an issue with BTRFS on Ubuntu 16.04 >> >>> This seems to be a recent change >

Re: Inconsistent free space with false ENOSPC

problem. Perhaps it would be good to somehow show that "global reserve" belongs to metadata and show in btrfs fi usage/df that metadata is full if global reserve>=free metadata, so that future users are not as confused by this situation as I was. Regards, Martin Raiber smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Inconsistent free space with false ENOSPC

Hi, I'm having a file system which is currently broken because of ENOSPC issues. It is a single device file system with no compression and no quotas enabled but with some snapshots. Creation and initial ENOSPC/free space inconsistency with 4.4.20 and 4.4.30 (both vanilla). Currently I am on

Re: Inconsistent free space with false ENOSPC

On 22.11.2016 15:16 Martin Raiber wrote: > ... > Interestingly, > after running "btrfs check --repair" "df" shows 0 free space (Used > 516456408 Available 0), being inconsistent with the below other btrfs > free space information. > > btrfs fi usa

Re: degraded BTRFS RAID 1 not mountable: open_ctree failed, unable to find block group for 0

Am Mittwoch, 16. November 2016, 15:43:36 CET schrieb Roman Mamedov: > On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 11:25:00 +0100 > > Martin Steigerwald <martin.steigerw...@teamix.de> wrote: > > merkaba:~> mount -o degraded,clear_cache /dev/satafp1/backup /mnt/zeit > > mount: Fals

degraded BTRFS RAID 1 not mountable: open_ctree failed, unable to find block group for 0

We seem to be looping a lot on daten-restore/[…]/virtualbox-4.1.18-dfsg/out/lib/vboxsoap.a, do you want to keep going on ? (y/N/a): after about 35 GiB of data restored. I answered no to this one and now it is at about 53 GiB already. I just got another one of these, but also not concerning a

Re: degraded BTRFS RAID 1 not mountable: open_ctree failed, unable to find block group for 0

Am Mittwoch, 16. November 2016, 16:00:31 CET schrieb Roman Mamedov: > On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 11:55:32 +0100 > > Martin Steigerwald <martin.steigerw...@teamix.de> wrote: > > I do think that above kernel messages invite such a kind of interpretation > > tough. I took th

Re: degraded BTRFS RAID 1 not mountable: open_ctree failed, unable to find block group for 0

gt; btrfs scrub status /dev/satafp1/daten scrub status for […] scrub started at Wed Nov 16 12:13:27 2016, running for 00:00:10 total bytes scrubbed: 45.53MiB with 0 errors It would be helpful to receive a proper error message on this one. Okay, seems today I learned quite something abou

Re: degraded BTRFS RAID 1 not mountable: open_ctree failed, unable to find block group for 0

Am Mittwoch, 16. November 2016, 07:57:08 CET schrieb Austin S. Hemmelgarn: > On 2016-11-16 06:04, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, 16. November 2016, 16:00:31 CET schrieb Roman Mamedov: > >> On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 11:55:32 +0100 > >> > >> Martin Steig

Re: degraded BTRFS RAID 1 not mountable: open_ctree failed, unable to find block group for 0

gt; decisions. I agree – as error reporting I think is indead misleading. Feel free to edit it. Ciao, -- Martin -- 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

Fwd: csum failed during copy/compare

Hey everyone, I work for system verification of SSDs and we've recently come up against an issue with BTRFS on Ubuntu 16.04. We have a framework which follows the following steps: Generate verifiable 10GB file with FIO on internal drive Copy 10GB file to 2 target partitions on DUT (using "cp"

Re: csum failed during copy/compare

After some investigation this seems to follow the discard flag set in fstab. 9 or so reproductions with discard on partition 2 fail move discard flag to partition 1, then partition 1 fails. Re-running our tests with no discard options set in fstab On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 1:02 PM, Martin Dev

Re: Convert from RAID 5 to 10

as excerpted: > >>>> Am 30/11/16 um 09:06 schrieb Martin Steigerwald: > >>>>> Am Mittwoch, 30. November 2016, 10:38:08 CET schrieb Roman Mamedov: […] > >> It is really disappointing to not have this information in the wiki > >> itself. This w

Re: Convert from RAID 5 to 10

rnel messages; and > the raid10 actually being more like raid0+1 I think it certainly a > gotcha, however 'man mkfs.btrfs' contains a grid that very clearly > states raid10 can only safely lose 1 device. Wow, that manpage is quite an resource. Developers, documentation people definitely

Re: Convert from RAID 5 to 10

gt; > Most of these also apply to all other RAID levels. So the stability matrix would need to be updated not to recommend any kind of BTRFS RAID 1 at the moment? Actually I faced the BTRFS RAID 1 read only after first attempt of mounting it "degraded" just a short time ago. BTRFS sti

Re: [markfasheh/duperemove] Why blocksize is limit to 1MB?

On 04.01.2017 00:43 Hans van Kranenburg wrote: > On 01/04/2017 12:12 AM, Peter Becker wrote: >> Good hint, this would be an option and i will try this. >> >> Regardless of this the curiosity has packed me and I will try to >> figure out where the problem with the low transfer rate is. >> >>

<    2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >