Hello,
According to Hugo and David's advise, the ioctl number of
BTRFS_IOC_FS_SETLABEL ioctl was changed to 50 now.
Signed-off-by: Jie Liu jeff@oracle.com
---
fs/btrfs/ctree.h |4
fs/btrfs/ioctl.c | 36
fs/btrfs/ioctl.h |2 ++
3 files
Fix the ioctl number of BTRFS_IOC_FS_SETLABEL to 50.
Signed-off-by: Jie Liu jeff@oracle.com
---
btrfs.c |7 +++
btrfs_cmds.c | 34 ++
btrfs_cmds.h |1 +
ctree.h |4
ioctl.h |2 ++
mkfs.c | 19
Hi,
Just noticed something about df -h output I didn't expect.
I'm sorry if this has already been answered or is a know problem.
Just see the test-part below to see what I did.
setup
- installed Fedora 16 Alpha on a KVM-VM with one 8GB HD-image.
- did a yum update
( - got a kernel
On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 11:50:43AM +0200, Leen Besselink wrote:
Hi,
Just noticed something about df -h output I didn't expect.
I'm sorry if this has already been answered or is a know problem.
Just see the test-part below to see what I did.
setup
- installed Fedora 16
. I am now using the snapshot /snapshots/20110902 but what is
/snapshots/20110902 now and why is it still listed? It's empty?
4. can i now delete the snapshots/20110902 or will that drop my current
active working root?
5. can i rename snapshots, e.g. the snapshots/20110902 or home to
home-20110905
working root?
The latter -- it will drop your working root.
5. can i rename snapshots, e.g. the snapshots/20110902 or home to
home-20110905?
I believe that mv will accomplish this.
6. is my btrfs filesystem broken now and should i recreate the whole
thing or is it safe to use
On 09/05/2011 12:19 PM, Hugo Mills wrote:
Snapshot/subvolume deletion is asynchronous -- it can take a while
to happen. Try waiting a minute or two after the snapshot deletion and
before looking at df -h.
Hugo.
As I didn't see any disc activity, I thought it was done.
I just tried
Hi!
Thank you Hugo for your answers, but i have an update.
It's dead Jim.
When i tried to mount subvolid=0 to a temporary folder i got a kernel
segfault and a BUG line in btrfs kernel code somewhere (reproducable),
after a reboot all volumes are broken, can't be mounted anymore...
btrfsfsck
On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 02:20:04PM +0200, Björn Kalkbrenner wrote:
Hi!
Thank you Hugo for your answers, but i have an update.
It's dead Jim.
When i tried to mount subvolid=0 to a temporary folder i got a kernel
segfault and a BUG line in btrfs kernel code somewhere (reproducable),
On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 11:30:33AM +0100, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 12:13:25PM +0200, Björn Kalkbrenner wrote:
2. why can't i do mount -o subvolume=home /dev/mapper/root /home
anymore? To be more exact, i can, but why is it empty and why is it
working when i enter the
While testing with balance I ran into the following lockdep issue.
It occurs on the second run.
[16678.879547] ===
[16678.972317] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[16679.047301] 3.1.0-rc4+ #61
[16679.079644]
On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 12:18 +0100, Maciej Marcin Piechotka wrote:
On Tue, 2011-08-30 at 09:47 +0100, Maciej Marcin Piechotka wrote:
On Tue, 2011-08-30 at 14:27 +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
On mon, 29 Aug 2011 02:45:07 +0100, Maciej Marcin Piechotka wrote:
I receive the bug when I try to
the snapshots/20110902 or will that drop my current
active working root?
5. can i rename snapshots, e.g. the snapshots/20110902 or home to
home-20110905?
6. is my btrfs filesystem broken now and should i recreate the whole
thing or is it safe to use it?
Bye
Björn
--
To unsubscribe from
Hi list,
I don't trust theoretical benchmarks that much and prefer real-life
benchs on the occasion, so here's mine:
Given 4 laptops, the most powerful of which was running BTRFS and the
others ext3 or ext4, all machines running Ubuntu 11.04 Natty 32-bit with
a stock Ubuntu 2.6.38-11
On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 03:51:29PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 12:13:25PM +0200, Björn Kalkbrenner wrote:
Then i tried to
mount -o subvolumeid=256 /dev/mapper/root /home (id of home subvol)
and the content of my home is back...
this is a known limitation and
On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 03:51:17PM +0200, Swâmi Petaramesh wrote:
Hi list,
I don't trust theoretical benchmarks that much and prefer real-life
benchs on the occasion, so here's mine:
Given 4 laptops, the most powerful of which was running BTRFS and
the others ext3 or ext4, all machines
On Mon, 5 Sep 2011 15:00:23 +0100
Hugo Mills h...@carfax.org.uk wrote:
BTRFS machine took 20 HOURS so far, still counting (ETA 15 minutes left).
Wow. Impressive.
That's because dpkg is known for using (f)sync very heavily. btrfs
honours the sync request in all cases
I don't
Did you manage to capture that output at all? (A photo would do).
Not yet, i am still on recovery from backup, that may take some time. If
i am done, i'll re-attach the broken btrfs system and dump some information.
It shouldn't be a big problem to redirect the kernel messages to a file.
We should retirn EINVAL if the start is beyond the end of the file
system in the btrfs_ioctl_fitrim(). Fix that by adding the appropriate
check for it.
Also in the btrfs_trim_fs() it is possible that len+start might overflow
if big values are passed. Fix it by decrementing the len so that
Hi Ilya,
Am 05.09.2011 15:07, schrieb Ilya Dryomov:
Well, it's *sort of* expected if you think about it. When you mounted
after set-default, your /home is no longer a valid subvolume access
point (it was in the default subvolume, until you rebooted). Inside
your snapshot /home is just an
On 05/09/11 14:51, � wrote:
Given 4 laptops, the most powerful of which was running BTRFS and the others
ext3 or ext4, all machines running Ubuntu 11.04 Natty 32-bit with a stock
Ubuntu 2.6.38-11 kernel, all machines were given the following FS-intensive
task :
(dpkg-intensive workload)
This happens on a freshly created btrfs filesystem in a raid10 (4x1TB)
configuration with three
subvolumes and 1.5 TB data.
When I try to snapshot one of the subvolumes (with 100 GB of data), it
says that the snapshot
creation failed and I get the following error message:
btrfs: could not do
That's because dpkg is known for using (f)sync very heavily. btrfs
honours the sync request in all cases, so it's much much slower than
ext3, which doesn't.
Hmm, is it really the case with ext3/ext4 (ignoring fsync in some cases)?
Sounds like a bug in ext3/ext4 then.
Is it documented
On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 06:23:23PM +0200, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
That's because dpkg is known for using (f)sync very heavily. btrfs
honours the sync request in all cases, so it's much much slower than
ext3, which doesn't.
Hmm, is it really the case with ext3/ext4 (ignoring fsync in
On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 12:25:21PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 06:23:23PM +0200, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
That's because dpkg is known for using (f)sync very heavily. btrfs
honours the sync request in all cases, so it's much much slower than
ext3, which
On Monday 05 September 2011 16:20:00 Roman Mamedov wrote:
[...]
real 0m6.924s
user 0m0.000s
sys 0m0.464s
To be fair, this was on the 2.6.39.2 kernel, and the performance seems to
be somewhat better on 3.0 (though I didn't do tests like this one or any
significant dpkg operations on it
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Ilya Dryomov idryo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 11:29:43AM -0400, Jérôme Poulin wrote:
Then I though about my folder organization again and renamed music to
downloads, this is still OK and then create music in downloads, I was
told music already
On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 15:51:17 +0200
Swâmi Petaramesh sw...@petaramesh.org wrote:
Hi list,
I don't trust theoretical benchmarks that much and prefer real-life
benchs on the occasion, so here's mine:
Given 4 laptops, the most powerful of which was running BTRFS and the
others ext3 or
Bad case of user error here but I managed to reformat one half of a
btrfs volume that was set up with metadata raid-1 and data raid-0.
I can mount the remaining half degraded, and can see all of the files,
but half their content is missing.
I’m just wondering whether, since all the metadata is
29 matches
Mail list logo
