Re: Possible deadlock when writing

I was having the same issue with kernels 4.19.2 and 4.19.4. I don’t appear to have the issue with 4.20.0-0.rc1 on Fedora Server 29. The issue is very easy to reproduce on my setup, not sure how much of it is actually relevant, but here it is: - 3 drive RAID5 created - Some data moved to it -

Re: [PATCH RESEND 0/8] btrfs-progs: sub: Relax the privileges of "subvolume list/show"

olume. Does that work recursively? I wound find it quite unexpected if I did btrfs subvol list in or on the root directory of a BTRFS filesystem would not display any subvolumes on that filesystem no matter where they are. Thanks, -- Martin

Re: Interpreting `btrfs filesystem show'

reports the raw size and sometimes the logical size. Especially in the "Total" line I find this a bit inconsistent. "RAID1" columns show logical size, "Unallocated" shows raw size. Also "Used:" in the global section shows raw size and "Free (estimated):" shows logical size. Thanks -- Martin

Re: BTRFS related kernel backtrace on boot on 4.18.7 after blackout due to discharged battery

Filipe Manana - 05.10.18, 17:21: > On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 3:23 PM Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > Hello! > > > > On ThinkPad T520 after battery was discharged and machine just > > blacked out. > > > > Is that some sign of regular consistency check / replay

BTRFS related kernel backtrace on boot on 4.18.7 after blackout due to discharged battery

30b2fea7fb77 ]--- [6.251219] BTRFS info (device dm-3): checking UUID tree Thanks, -- Martin

Re: very poor performance / a lot of writes to disk with space_cache (but not with space_cache=v2)

are that? I am wondering whether to switch to freespace tree v2. Would it provide benefit for a regular / and /home filesystems as dual SSD BTRFS RAID-1 on a laptop? Thanks, -- Martin

Re: Transactional btrfs

Am 08.09.2018 um 18:24 schrieb Adam Borowski: > On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 06:08:33AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: >> On 2018-09-06 03:23, Nathan Dehnel wrote: >>> So I guess my question is, does btrfs support atomic writes across >>> multiple files? Or is anyone interested in such a feature?

Re: lazytime mount option—no support in Btrfs

. Has any thought been given to adding support > > for lazytime to Btrfs? […] > Is there any new regarding this? I´d like to know whether there is any news about this as well. If I understand it correctly this could even help BTRFS performance a lot cause it is COW´ing metadata. Thanks, -- Martin

Re: Experiences on BTRFS Dual SSD RAID 1 with outage of one SSD

Roman Mamedov - 18.08.18, 09:12: > On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 23:17:33 +0200 > > Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > > Do not consider SSD "compression" as a factor in any of your > > > calculations or planning. Modern controllers do not do it anymore, > > > th

Re: Experiences on BTRFS Dual SSD RAID 1 with outage of one SSD

Austin S. Hemmelgarn - 17.08.18, 14:55: > On 2018-08-17 08:28, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > Thanks for your detailed answer. > > > > Austin S. Hemmelgarn - 17.08.18, 13:58: > >> On 2018-08-17 05:08, Martin Steigerwald wrote: […] > >>> Anyway, creating

Re: Experiences on BTRFS Dual SSD RAID 1 with outage of one SSD

Hi Roman. Now with proper CC. Roman Mamedov - 17.08.18, 14:50: > On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 14:28:25 +0200 > > Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > > First off, keep in mind that the SSD firmware doing compression > > > only > > > really helps with wear-leveling. Doing

Re: Experiences on BTRFS Dual SSD RAID 1 with outage of one SSD

Austin S. Hemmelgarn - 17.08.18, 15:01: > On 2018-08-17 08:50, Roman Mamedov wrote: > > On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 14:28:25 +0200 > > > > Martin Steigerwald wrote: > >>> First off, keep in mind that the SSD firmware doing compression > >>> only

Hang after growing file system (4.14.48)

7fe655700 R09: 0101 [Fri Aug 17 16:21:06 2018] R10: 56521bf7c0cc R11: 0246 R12: 7f67fd6d6440 [Fri Aug 17 16:21:06 2018] R13: 7f67fd6d5900 R14: 0064 R15: 0000 Regards, Martin Raiber

Re: Experiences on BTRFS Dual SSD RAID 1 with outage of one SSD

Thanks for your detailed answer. Austin S. Hemmelgarn - 17.08.18, 13:58: > On 2018-08-17 05:08, Martin Steigerwald wrote: […] > > I have seen a discussion about the limitation in point 2. That > > allowing to add a device and make it into RAID 1 again might be > > dange

Experiences on BTRFS Dual SSD RAID 1 with outage of one SSD

not compress, but Crucial m500 mSATA SSD does. That has been the secondary SSD that still had all the data after the outage of the Intel SSD 320. Overall I am happy, cause BTRFS RAID 1 gave me access to the data after the SSD outage. That is the most important thing about it for me. Thanks, -- Martin

Re: BTRFS and databases

On 02.08.2018 14:27 Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > On 2018-08-02 06:56, Qu Wenruo wrote: >> >> On 2018年08月02日 18:45, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: >>> >>> Отправлено с iPhone >>> 2 авг. 2018 г., в 10:02, Qu Wenruo написал(а): > On 2018年08月01日 11:45, MegaBrutal wrote: > Hi all,

Re: BTRFS and databases

Andrei Borzenkov - 02.08.18, 12:35: > Отправлено с iPhone > > > 2 авг. 2018 г., в 12:16, Martin Steigerwald > > написал(а):> > > Hugo Mills - 01.08.18, 10:56: > >>> On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 05:45:15AM +0200, MegaBrutal wrote: > >>> I know it

Re: BTRFS and databases

dont-let-friends-use-btrfs-for-oltp Interestingly it also compares with ZFS which is doing much better. So maybe there is really something to be learned from ZFS. I did not get clearly whether the benchmark was on an SSD, as Tomas notes the "ssd" mount option, it might have been. Thank

Re: Healthy amount of free space?

Nikolay Borisov - 17.07.18, 10:16: > On 17.07.2018 11:02, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > Nikolay Borisov - 17.07.18, 09:20: > >> On 16.07.2018 23:58, Wolf wrote: > >>> Greetings, > >>> I would like to ask what what is healthy amount of free space to >

Re: Healthy amount of free space?

nance from user space, the filesystem needs to be fixed. Ideally I would not have to worry on whether to regularly balance an BTRFS or not. In other words: I should not have to visit a performance analysis and tuning course in order to use a computer with BTRFS filesystem. Thanks, --

Re: Transaction aborted (error -28) btrfs_run_delayed_refs*0x163/0x190

On 10.07.2018 09:04 Pete wrote: > I've just had the error in the subject which caused the file system to > go read-only. > > Further part of error message: > WARNING: CPU: 14 PID: 1351 at fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:3076 > btrfs_run_delayed_refs*0x163/0x190 > > 'Screenshot' here: >

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] btrfs: Check each block group has corresponding chunk at mount time

gt; > Maybe it's a good idea to added it to "submitting-patches.rst"? > > I guess it's not officially documented but if you do git log --grep > "Link:" you'd see quite a lot of patches actually have a Link pointing > to the original thread if it has sparked some pertinen

Re: "decompress failed" in 1-2 files always causes kernel oops, check/scrub pass

Hardware is fine. Passes memtest86+ in SMP mode. Works fine on all > other files. > > > > [ 381.869940] BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at > 00390e50 [ 381.870881] BTRFS: decompress failed […] -- Martin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line

Btrfs remounted read-only due to ENOSPC in btrfs_run_delayed_refs cont. [Was: Re: metadata_ratio mount option?]

Hello Chris, Dne 7.5.2018 v 18:37 Chris Mason napsal(a): > > > On 7 May 2018, at 12:16, Martin Svec wrote: > >> Hello Chris, >> >> Dne 7.5.2018 v 16:49 Chris Mason napsal(a): >>> On 7 May 2018, at 7:40, Martin Svec wrote: >>> >>

Re: metadata_ratio mount option?

Hello Chris, Dne 7.5.2018 v 16:49 Chris Mason napsal(a): > On 7 May 2018, at 7:40, Martin Svec wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> According to man btrfs [1], I assume that metadata_ratio=1 mount option >> should >> force allocation of one metadata chunk after every alloca

metadata_ratio mount option?

ors. Best regards. Martin [1] https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Manpage/btrfs(5)#MOUNT_OPTIONS -- 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: extent-tree.c no space left (4.9.77 + 4.16.2)

too. Martin Dne 21.4.2018 v 9:38 David Goodwin napsal(a): > Hi, > > I'm running a 3TiB EBS based (2+1TiB devices) volume in EC2 which contains > about 500 read-only > snapshots. > > btrfs-progs v4.7.3 > > There are two dmesg trace things below. The fir

Re: Btrfs remounted read-only due to ENOSPC in btrfs_run_delayed_refs

Dne 10.3.2018 v 15:51 Martin Svec napsal(a): > Dne 10.3.2018 v 13:13 Nikolay Borisov napsal(a): >> >> >>>>> And then report back on the output of the extra debug >>>>> statements. >>>>> >>>>> Your global rsv is essen

Re: Btrfs remounted read-only due to ENOSPC in btrfs_run_delayed_refs

Dne 10.3.2018 v 13:13 Nikolay Borisov napsal(a): > > > And then report back on the output of the extra debug statements. Your global rsv is essentially unused, this means in the worst case the code should fallback to using the global rsv for satisfying the memory

Re: Btrfs remounted read-only due to ENOSPC in btrfs_run_delayed_refs

Dne 9.3.2018 v 20:03 Martin Svec napsal(a): > Dne 9.3.2018 v 17:36 Nikolay Borisov napsal(a): >> On 23.02.2018 16:28, Martin Svec wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> we have a btrfs-based backup system using btrfs snapshots and rsync. >>> Sometimes, >>

Re: Btrfs remounted read-only due to ENOSPC in btrfs_run_delayed_refs

Dne 9.3.2018 v 17:36 Nikolay Borisov napsal(a): > > On 23.02.2018 16:28, Martin Svec wrote: >> Hello, >> >> we have a btrfs-based backup system using btrfs snapshots and rsync. >> Sometimes, >> we hit ENOSPC bug and the filesystem is remounted read-only. H

Re: Btrfs remounted read-only due to ENOSPC in btrfs_run_delayed_refs

, or is it an indication of a damaged filesystem? Also note that rebuilding free space cache doesn't help. Thank you. Martin Dne 23.2.2018 v 15:28 Martin Svec napsal(a): > Hello, > > we have a btrfs-based backup system using btrfs snapshots and rsync. > Sometimes, > we hit ENOSPC bug and the filesyst

Btrfs remounted read-only due to ENOSPC in btrfs_run_delayed_refs

.096979] BTRFS warning (device sdb): Skipping commit of aborted transaction. [285169.096981] BTRFS: error (device sdb) in cleanup_transaction:1873: errno=-28 No space left How can I help you to fix this issue? Regards, Martin Svec -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line &q

Re: Recommendations for balancing as part of regular maintenance?

On 08.01.2018 19:34 Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > On 2018-01-08 13:17, Graham Cobb wrote: >> On 08/01/18 16:34, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: >>> Ideally, I think it should be as generic as reasonably possible, >>> possibly something along the lines of: >>> >>> A: While not strictly necessary,

Btrfs blocked by too many delayed refs

with btrfs_should_throttle_delayed_refs . Maybe by creating a snapshot of a file and then modifying it (some action that creates delayed refs, is not truncate which is already throttled and does not commit a transaction which is also throttled). Regards, Martin Raiber -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line

Re: again "out of space" and remount read only, with 4.14

On 03.12.2017 16:39 Martin Raiber wrote: > Am 26.11.2017 um 17:02 schrieb Tomasz Chmielewski: >> On 2017-11-27 00:37, Martin Raiber wrote: >>> On 26.11.2017 08:46 Tomasz Chmielewski wrote: >>>> Got this one on a 4.14-rc7 filesystem with some 400 GB left: >>>

Re: again "out of space" and remount read only, with 4.14

Am 26.11.2017 um 17:02 schrieb Tomasz Chmielewski: > On 2017-11-27 00:37, Martin Raiber wrote: >> On 26.11.2017 08:46 Tomasz Chmielewski wrote: >>> Got this one on a 4.14-rc7 filesystem with some 400 GB left: >> I guess it is too late now, but I guess the "btrfs fi

Re: Read before you deploy btrfs + zstd

1072 > ZSTD_DStreamWorkspaceBound with ZSTD_BTRFS_MAX_INPUT: 549424 > > This is not something I could fix easily, we'd probalby need a tuned > version of ZSTD for grub constraints. Adding Nick to CC. Somehow I am happy that I still have a plain Ext4 for /boot. :) Thanks for looking

Re: Read before you deploy btrfs + zstd

David Sterba - 14.11.17, 19:49: > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 08:34:37AM +0100, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > Hello David. > > > > David Sterba - 13.11.17, 23:50: > > > while 4.14 is still fresh, let me address some concerns I've seen on > > > linux > > &

Re: Read before you deploy btrfs + zstd

is safe to use? Are you aware of any other issues? I consider switching from LZO to ZSTD on this ThinkPad T520 with Sandybridge. 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 m

Re: how to run balance successfully (No space left on device)?

fault and as usual not all the conditions may be relevant. Could also be instead an upper layer error (Hyper-V storage), memory issue or an application error. Regards, Martin Raiber -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message t

Re: Multiple btrfs-cleaner threads per volume

On 02.11.2017 16:10 Hans van Kranenburg wrote: > On 11/02/2017 04:02 PM, Martin Raiber wrote: >> snapshot cleanup is a little slow in my case (50TB volume). Would it >> help to have multiple btrfs-cleaner threads? The block layer underneath >> would have higher throughput w

Multiple btrfs-cleaner threads per volume

Hi, snapshot cleanup is a little slow in my case (50TB volume). Would it help to have multiple btrfs-cleaner threads? The block layer underneath would have higher throughput with more simultaneous read/write requests. Regards, Martin Raiber -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line

Re: Data and metadata extent allocators [1/2]: Recap: The data story

hotgunblast.png > [4] > https://syrinx.knorrie.org/~knorrie/btrfs/keep/2016-12-18-heatmap-scripting/ > fsid_ed10a358-c846-4e76-a071-3821d423a99d_startat_320029589504_at_1482095269 > .png [5] https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg64418.html > [6] > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/ke

Re: 4.13: "error in btrfs_run_delayed_refs:3009: errno=-28 No space left" with 1.3TB unallocated / 737G free?

ENOSPC issues with 4.9.x than with the latest 4.14. Regards, 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

Something like ZFS Channel Programs for BTRFS & probably XFS or even VFS?

in userspace, I am all for it. [1] http://www.netbsd.org/releases/formal-7/NetBSD-7.0.html (tons of presentation PDFs on their site as well) 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 majo

Something like ZFS Channel Programs for BTRFS & probably XFS or even VFS?

of presentation PDFs on their site as well) 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: Regarding handling of file renames in Btrfs

le operations? > as far as I can see it only uses the log tree in some cases where the log tree was already used for the file or the parent directory. The cases are documented here https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c#L45 . So rename isn't much heavier than unlink+cre

Re: qemu-kvm VM died during partial raid1 problems of btrfs

tuff like e.g. page files or the shadow storage area from the image backups, as well and has a mode to store image backups as raw btrfs files. Linux VMs I'd backup as files either from the hypervisor or from in VM. If you want to backup big btrfs image files it can do that too, and faster th

Re: Regarding handling of file renames in Btrfs

ty >> data pages to disk, and then commit transaction. >> While only calling btrfs_commit_transacation() doesn't trigger dirty >> page writeback. >> >> So there is a difference. this conversation made me realize why btrfs has sub-optimal meta-data performance. Cow b-tree

Re: 4.11.6 / more corruption / root 15455 has a root item with a more recent gen (33682) compared to the found root node (0)

th > snapshots, is unlikely to hit me. Hmmm, the BTRFS filesystems on my laptop 3 to 5 or even more years old. I stick with 4.10 for now, I think. The older ones are RAID 1 across two SSDs, the newer one is single device, on one SSD. These filesystems didn´t fail me in years and since 4.5 or 4.6

Re: 4.11.6 / more corruption / root 15455 has a root item with a more recent gen (33682) compared to the found root node (0)

filesystems like Ext4 and XFS can do it… so this should be possible with BTRFS as well. 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 02/13] scsi/osd: don't save block errors into req_results

Christoph, > We will only have sense data if the command exectured and got a SCSI > result, so this is pointless. "executed" Reviewed-by: Martin K. Petersen <martin.peter...@oracle.com> -- Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering -- To unsubscribe from th

Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 08/15] dm mpath: merge do_end_io_bio into multipath_end_io_bio

turn 0; /* I/O complete */ > + BUG_ON(!mpio); You dereferenced mpio already above. Regards, Martin >   > - if (noretry_error(error)) > - return error; > + if (!error || noretry_error(error)) > + goto done; >   > - if (mpio->pg

Re: runtime btrfsck

past experience something like xfs_repair surpasses btrfs check in the ability to actually fix broken filesystem by a great extent. Ciao, -- Martin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org Mo

Re: [4.9] btrfs check --repair looping over file extent discount errors

Martin Steigerwald - 22.04.17, 20:01: > Chris Murphy - 22.04.17, 09:31: > > Is the file system created with no-holes? > > I have how to find out about it and while doing accidentally set that I didn´t find out how to find out about it and… > feature on another filesystem (bt

Re: [4.9] btrfs check --repair looping over file extent discount errors

Hello Chris. Chris Murphy - 22.04.17, 09:31: > Is the file system created with no-holes? I have how to find out about it and while doing accidentally set that feature on another filesystem (btrfstune only seems to be able to enable the feature, not show the current state of it). But as there

Re: [4.9] btrfs check --repair looping over file extent discount errors

ASAP. Thanks, Martin Martin Steigerwald - 14.04.17, 21:35: > Hello, > > backup harddisk connected via eSATA. Hard kernel hang, mouse pointer > freezing two times seemingly after finishing /home backup and creating new > snapshot on source BTRFS SSD RAID 1 for / in order to b

[4.9] btrfs check --repair looping over file extent discount errors

on it. Anyway deleting that subvolume works and I as I suspected an issue with the backup disk I started with that one. I got merkaba:~> btrfs --version btrfs-progs v4.9.1 merkaba:~> cat /proc/version Linux version 4.9.20-tp520-btrfstrim+ (martin@merkaba) (gcc version 6.3.0 20170321 (Debian

Re: Do different btrfs volumes compete for CPU?

or 48TB of data (not enough room in the host for the disks). Never suffered am eSATA disconnect. Had the usual cooling fan fails and HDD fails due to old age. All just a case of ensuring undisturbed clean cabling and a good UPS?... (BTRFS spanning four disks per external pack has worked wel

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

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

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: 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: 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: [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. >> >>

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

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

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: 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

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

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: 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

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; 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, 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

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: 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: 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: 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

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: 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 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: 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: 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)

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: 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

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: 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: 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: 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?

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, 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: 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, 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?

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

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >