Marc MERLIN posted on Tue, 20 Jun 2017 16:12:03 -0700 as excerpted:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 08:44:29AM -0700, Marc MERLIN wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 03:36:01PM +, Hugo Mills wrote:
>>
"space cache will be invalidated " => doesn't that mean that my
cache was already cleared
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 09:26:27PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> Right now Btrfs isn't scalable if you have to repair it because large
> volumes run into this problem; one of the reasons for the lowmem mode.
>
> It's a separate bug that it OOMs even with swap, I don't know why it
> won't use that,
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 09:31:42PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Marc MERLIN wrote:
>
> > I'm now going to remount this with nospace_cache to see if your guess about
> > space_cache was correct.
> > Other suggestions also welcome :)
>
> What
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> I'm now going to remount this with nospace_cache to see if your guess about
> space_cache was correct.
> Other suggestions also welcome :)
What results do you get with lowmem mode? It won't repair without
additional
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> In the meantime, I ran into this again:
> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=195863
> btrfs check of a big filesystem kills the kernel due to OOM (but btrfs
> userspace is not OOM killed)
>
> Is it achievable at
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 04:12:03PM -0700, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> Given that check --repair ran clean when I ran it yesterday after this first
> happened,
> and I then ran mount -o clear_cache , the cache got rebuilt, and I got the
> problem again,
> this is not looking good, seems like a
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 08:44:29AM -0700, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 03:36:01PM +, Hugo Mills wrote:
> > > Thanks for having a look. Is it a bug, or is it a problem with my storage
> > > subsystem?
> >
> >Well, I'd say it's probably a problem with some inconsistent data
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 03:36:01PM +, Hugo Mills wrote:
> > Thanks for having a look. Is it a bug, or is it a problem with my storage
> > subsystem?
>
>Well, I'd say it's probably a problem with some inconsistent data
> on the disk. How that data got there is another matter -- it may be
>
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 08:26:48AM -0700, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 03:23:54PM +, Hugo Mills wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 07:39:16AM -0700, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> > > My filesystem got remounted read only, and yet after a lengthy
> > > btrfs check --repair, it ran clean.
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 03:23:54PM +, Hugo Mills wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 07:39:16AM -0700, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> > My filesystem got remounted read only, and yet after a lengthy
> > btrfs check --repair, it ran clean.
> >
> > Any idea what went wrong?
> > [846332.992285] WARNING: CPU:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 07:39:16AM -0700, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> My filesystem got remounted read only, and yet after a lengthy
> btrfs check --repair, it ran clean.
>
> Any idea what went wrong?
> [846332.992285] WARNING: CPU: 4 PID: 4095 at fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c:1476
>
My filesystem got remounted read only, and yet after a lengthy
btrfs check --repair, it ran clean.
Any idea what went wrong?
[846332.992285] WARNING: CPU: 4 PID: 4095 at fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c:1476
tree_insert_offset+0x78/0xb1
[846333.744721] BTRFS critical (device dm-1): unable to add free
12 matches
Mail list logo