Any comments? If this patch is acceptable, it should be queued for .39?
since fs.h is exported to userspace.
Li Zefan wrote:
FS_COW_FL and FS_NOCOW_FL were newly introduced to control per file
COW in btrfs, but FS_NOCOW_FL is sufficient.
The fact is we don't have corresponding
Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
Hey,
defragging btrfs does not seem to work for me. I have run the filefrag
command over the whole fs and (manually) tried to defrag a few heavily
fragmented files, but I don't get it to work (it still has the same
number of extends and they are horrently
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 4:33 AM, Bernhard Schmidt be...@birkenwald.de wrote:
Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
Hey,
defragging btrfs does not seem to work for me. I have run the filefrag
command over the whole fs and (manually) tried to defrag a few heavily
fragmented files, but I don't get
Excerpts from John Wyzer's message of 2011-04-30 18:33:20 -0400:
Excerpts from Mitch Harder's message of Sun May 01 00:16:53 +0200 2011:
Hmm.
Tried it and it gives me about 50 lines of
FIBMAP: Invalid argument
and then:
large_file: 1 extent found
Is that the way
Excerpts from John Wyzer's message of 2011-04-30 18:33:20 -0400:
Excerpts from Mitch Harder's message of Sun May 01 00:16:53 +0200 2011:
Hmm.
Tried it and it gives me about 50 lines of
FIBMAP: Invalid argument
and then:
large_file: 1 extent found
Is that the way
Excerpts from Bernhard Schmidt's message of 2011-05-03 06:33:25 -0400:
Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
Hey,
defragging btrfs does not seem to work for me. I have run the filefrag
command over the whole fs and (manually) tried to defrag a few heavily
fragmented files, but I don't get it
Excerpts from Li Zefan's message of 2011-05-03 05:11:44 -0400:
Any comments? If this patch is acceptable, it should be queued for .39?
since fs.h is exported to userspace.
Li Zefan wrote:
FS_COW_FL and FS_NOCOW_FL were newly introduced to control per file
COW in btrfs, but FS_NOCOW_FL is
Am 03.05.2011 13:08, schrieb Chris Mason:
defragging btrfs does not seem to work for me. I have run the filefrag
command over the whole fs and (manually) tried to defrag a few heavily
fragmented files, but I don't get it to work (it still has the same
number of extends and they are horrently
Excerpts from Bernhard Schmidt's message of 2011-05-03 07:30:36 -0400:
Am 03.05.2011 13:08, schrieb Chris Mason:
defragging btrfs does not seem to work for me. I have run the filefrag
command over the whole fs and (manually) tried to defrag a few heavily
fragmented files, but I don't get
Am 03.05.2011 13:00, schrieb cwillu:
Hi,
defragging btrfs does not seem to work for me. I have run the filefrag
command over the whole fs and (manually) tried to defrag a few heavily
fragmented files, but I don't get it to work (it still has the same
number of extends and they are horrently
Hi,
Using compression is not a problem, but in order to reduce the maximum
amount of ram we need to uncompress an extent, we enforce a max size on
the extent. So you'll tend to have more extents, but they should be
close together on disk.
Could you please do a filefrag -v on the file?
Excerpts from Bernhard Schmidt's message of 2011-05-03 07:43:04 -0400:
Hi,
Using compression is not a problem, but in order to reduce the maximum
amount of ram we need to uncompress an extent, we enforce a max size on
the extent. So you'll tend to have more extents, but they should be
Hi,
Ok, looks like we could be doing a little better job when compression is
on to build out a bigger extent. This shouldn't be causing trouble on
an ssd at all but on your rotating disk it'll be slightly slower.
Still most of these extents are somewhat close together, this is roughly
Peter Stuge wrote:
Sorry for not following up on this until now. :( I've been busy and
have been using a backup. But I'm still very interested in restoring
the btrfs and finding this bug! Let me know if I should refresh any
details.
Ping?
I've created a small btrfs to see if I can learn a
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 8:03 AM, Bernhard Schmidt be...@birkenwald.de wrote:
Hi,
Ok, looks like we could be doing a little better job when compression is
on to build out a bigger extent. This shouldn't be causing trouble on
an ssd at all but on your rotating disk it'll be slightly slower.
Yunpeng == Gao, Yunpeng yunpeng@intel.com writes:
Yunpeng So, my question is, is there any plan or discussion on
Yunpeng supporting this feature (passing data type info to low level
Yunpeng block device driver) on file system developments? Especially
Yunpeng for ext4/btrfs, since now they
On 3 May 2011 19:30, Bernhard Schmidt be...@birkenwald.de wrote:
[]
The file the defrag ioctl works is that it schedules things for defrag
but doesn't force out the IO immediately unless you use -f.
So, to test the result of the defrag, you need to either wait a bit or
run sync.
Did so, no
The ceph guys keep running into problems where we have space reserved in our
orphan block rsv when freeing it up. This is because they tend to do snapshots
alot, so their truncates tend to use a bunch of space, so when we go to do
things like update the inode we have to steal reservation space in
On 04/27/2011 02:43 PM, Jim Schutt wrote:
Hi,
I'm not sure if they matter, but I got these warnings on
one of the machines I'm using as a Ceph OSD server:
[ 1806.549469] [ cut here ]
[ 1806.554593] WARNING: at fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:5790
use_block_rsv+0xa7/0x101
On 04/27/2011 02:52 PM, Marco Neubauer wrote:
Hi,
this is happening mostly every night. I can't reproduce it right now.
vanilla kernel 2.6.38.4
Can you update to a newer kernel, this should be fixed there. Thanks,
Josef
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe
On 04/27/2011 02:52 PM, K. Richard Pixley wrote:
At what percentage utilization are folks typically seeing no space left
on device?
And what would constitute pathological values worth reporting and/or
offering up as debugging instances?
Well if you are having problems let us know what you
Am 03.05.2011 16:54, schrieb Daniel J Blueman:
Hi,
The file the defrag ioctl works is that it schedules things for defrag
but doesn't force out the IO immediately unless you use -f.
So, to test the result of the defrag, you need to either wait a bit or
run sync.
Did so, no change. See my
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Daniel J Blueman
daniel.blue...@gmail.com wrote:
It does seem the case generally; on 2.6.39-rc5, writing to a fresh
filesystem using rsync with BTRFS compression enabled, 128KB extents
seem very common [1] (filefrag inconsistency noted).
Defragmenting with
If posix_acl_from_xattr() returns an error code, a negative address is
dereferenced causing an oops; fix by checking for error code first.
Signed-off-by: Daniel J Blueman daniel.blue...@gmail.com
---
fs/btrfs/acl.c |5 +++--
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git
Excerpts from Mitch Harder's message of 2011-05-03 11:42:56 -0400:
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Daniel J Blueman
daniel.blue...@gmail.com wrote:
It does seem the case generally; on 2.6.39-rc5, writing to a fresh
filesystem using rsync with BTRFS compression enabled, 128KB extents
seem
Having a failure that may be because grub2 doesn't BTRFS. /boot is ext3 and /
is BTRFS.
# dpkg -r linux-image-2.6.32-5-amd64
(Reading database ... 136673 files and directories currently installed.)
Removing linux-image-2.6.32-5-amd64 ...
Examining /etc/kernel/postrm.d .
run-parts: executing
In recent thread on the list (see: abysmal performance), there
were some questions regarding why Btrfs seems to break up compressed files
into 32 block (128KB) chunks.
This is done for two reasons:
(1) Ease the RAM required when spreading compression across several CPUs.
(2) Make sure the
The size of relocated compressed extents was limited to 128K.
This limit is put in place to ease the RAM required when spreading
compression across several CPUs, and to make sure the amount
of IO required to do a random read is reasonably small.
Increase this limit to 512K.
---
The size of compressed extents was limited to 128K, which
leads to fragmentation of the extents (although the extents
themselves may still be located contiguously). This limit is
put in place to ease the RAM required when spreading compression
across several CPUs, and to make sure the amount of
2011/5/3 Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com:
On 05/03/2011 12:44 PM, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
If posix_acl_from_xattr() returns an error code, a negative address is
dereferenced causing an oops; fix by checking for error code first.
Signed-off-by: Daniel J Bluemandaniel.blue...@gmail.com
---
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 2:27 AM, cac...@quantum-sci.com wrote:
Having a failure that may be because grub2 doesn't BTRFS. /boot is ext3 and
/ is BTRFS.
Does Debian (or whatever distro you use) support BTRFS /?
If yes, you should ask them.
If no, then you should've already known that there's a
since my last debian kernel-update to 2.6.38-2-amd64 i got troubles with
csum failures. it's a volume full of huge kvm-images on md-RAID1 and
LVM, so i used the mount options: 'noatime,nodatasum' to maximize the
performance.
it happened two weeks ago for the fist time. and now again a
On Tuesday 3 May, 2011 14:26:52 Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
Does Debian (or whatever distro you use) support BTRFS /?
If yes, you should ask them.
What do you mean 'does Debian support BTRFS'? The kernel supports it. And why
would they know more about BTRFS than you?
My whole system is
On Tuesday, May 03, 2011 05:20:49 PM cac...@quantum-sci.com wrote:
-snip-
I would be happy to upgrade grub, but the package management system is
jammed because of this.
-snip-
You should Re-read the error you posted. The package management system goes
bonkers, because
/usr/sbin/grub-probe:
I know what the error says; we've established that / is in fact mounted. The
system boots and runs, but grub doesn't understand it. My only answer is that
grub-probe does not understand BTRFS.
The question is what to do about this. I have three major systems committed to
this filesystem.
On Tuesday, May 03, 2011 07:12:42 PM cac...@quantum-sci.com wrote:
I know what the error says; we've established that / is in fact mounted.
The system boots and runs, but grub doesn't understand it. My only answer
is that grub-probe does not understand BTRFS.
The question is what to do
Am 2011-05-04 02:28, schrieb Josef Bacik:
Wait why are you running with btrfs in production?
do you know a better alternative for continuous snapshots? :)
it works surprisingly well since more than a year.
well the performance could be better for vm-image-hosting but it works.
we used
On 04/05/11 08:20, cac...@quantum-sci.com wrote:
My whole system is installed over BTRFS. If this is
non-functional in any OS there should be a warning
indicating it is non-functional.
The text for btrfs in the kernel configuration says:
Btrfs is highly experimental, and THE DISK FORMAT IS
Not sure where to report bugs or even find a coherent list of them.
Sorry if this is already well known.
When attempting to use an unlocked encrypted device as either a seed
device or the writeable device, a kernel bug will be displayed at
fs/btrfs/volumes.c:2402 after attempting to add the
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Geoff Ritter geoff.rit...@gmail.com wrote:
Not sure where to report bugs or even find a coherent list of them. Sorry
if this is already well known.
When attempting to use an unlocked encrypted device as either a seed device
or the writeable device, a kernel
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 7:44 AM, Martin Schitter m...@mur.at wrote:
Am 2011-05-04 02:28, schrieb Josef Bacik:
Wait why are you running with btrfs in production?
do you know a better alternative for continuous snapshots? :)
zfs :D
it works surprisingly well since more than a year.
well the
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 5:20 AM, cac...@quantum-sci.com wrote:
On Tuesday 3 May, 2011 14:26:52 Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
Does Debian (or whatever distro you use) support BTRFS /?
If yes, you should ask them.
What do you mean 'does Debian support BTRFS'? The kernel supports it.
Just because
If posix_acl_from_xattr() returns an error code, a negative address is
dereferenced causing an oops; fix by checking for an error code first.
Typo fixed; too much late-night coding.
Signed-off-by: Daniel J Blueman daniel.blue...@gmail.com
---
fs/btrfs/acl.c |5 +++--
1 files changed, 3
43 matches
Mail list logo
