On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 11:02:31AM +0800, Liu Bo wrote:
> On 08/15/2012 10:48 AM, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:23:14AM -0700, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> >> My laptop oopsed due to a wireless bug
> >>
> >> When I rebooted, the system came back ok, and seemed to work, but soon went
> >
On 08/15/2012 10:48 AM, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:23:14AM -0700, Marc MERLIN wrote:
>> My laptop oopsed due to a wireless bug
>>
>> When I rebooted, the system came back ok, and seemed to work, but soon went
>> to read only with the error in the subject line.
>>
>> I have hour
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:23:14AM -0700, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> My laptop oopsed due to a wireless bug
>
> When I rebooted, the system came back ok, and seemed to work, but soon went
> to read only with the error in the subject line.
>
> I have hourly snapshots for each of the 5 subvolumes in that
> Is there some way to fix this corruption? I noticed what looks like
> the same problem in an earlier message on the list ("btrfs unmountable
> after failed suspend", February 7), but with no resolution. I have
> offline backups, but recovering those in their entirety will take some
> time, so a s
Swinging this pendulum back the other way. We've been allocating chunks up
to 2% of the disk no matter how much we actually have allocated. So instead
fix this calculation to only allocate chunks if we have more than 80% of the
space available allocated. Please test this as it will likely cause
My laptop oopsed due to a wireless bug
When I rebooted, the system came back ok, and seemed to work, but soon went
to read only with the error in the subject line.
I have hourly snapshots for each of the 5 subvolumes in that btrfs
filesystem.
How do I recover from this? Revert all the snapshots
Hi all,
I'm running btrfs in a 3-disk RAID1 configuration. After a hard
power-off, I'm seeing a lot of hung I/O tasks on this volume,
apparently due to a corrupt leaf. I first noticed the problem on
kernel 3.4.7, and it's persisted with 3.4.8. Relevant parts of the
kernel log follow.
[ 85.17962
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:32:43AM +0200, Jan Schmidt wrote:
> On Wed, August 08, 2012 at 20:55 (+0200), Mark Fasheh wrote:
> > +/*
> > + * btrfs_insert_inode_extref() - Inserts an extended inode ref into a tree.
> > + *
> > + * The caller must have checked against BTRFS_LINK_MAX already.
> > + */
On 08/02/2012 05:06 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> ===
> PLEASE REVIEW AND TEST THIS CAREFULLY
>
> I've dug this patch out of the bin and cleaned it up but who knows what kind
> of
> crust I've missed. This makes the create empty files until the file system is
> full ru
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 9:09 PM, cwillu wrote:
If I understand correctly, if I don't use LVM, then such move and resize
operations can't be done for an online filesystem and it has more risk.
>>>
>>> You can resize, add, and rem
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 08:09 -0600, cwillu wrote:
> >> If I understand correctly, if I don't use LVM, then such move and resize
> >> operations can't be done for an online filesystem and it has more risk.
> >
> > You can resize, add, and remove devices from btrfs online without the
> > need for LVM.
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 9:09 PM, cwillu wrote:
>>> If I understand correctly, if I don't use LVM, then such move and resize
>>> operations can't be done for an online filesystem and it has more risk.
>>
>> You can resize, add, and remove devices from btrfs online without the
>> need for LVM. IIRC
Il 14/08/2012 15:53, Liu Bo ha scritto:
On 08/14/2012 08:59 PM, Marco Stornelli wrote:
Il 14/08/2012 07:01, liub.li...@gmail.com ha scritto:
From: Liu Bo
I found this while testing xfstests 068, the story is
t1t2
sys_sync
>> If I understand correctly, if I don't use LVM, then such move and resize
>> operations can't be done for an online filesystem and it has more risk.
>
> You can resize, add, and remove devices from btrfs online without the
> need for LVM. IIRC LVM has finer granularity though, you can do
> someth
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 8:28 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> Can you just elaborate on the qgroups feature?
> - Does this just mean I can make the subvolume sizes rigid, like LV sizes?
Pretty much.
> - Or is it per-user restrictions or some other more elaborate solution?
No
>
> If I create 10 LVs t
On 08/14/2012 08:59 PM, Marco Stornelli wrote:
> Il 14/08/2012 07:01, liub.li...@gmail.com ha scritto:
>> From: Liu Bo
>>
>> I found this while testing xfstests 068, the story is
>>
>> t1t2
>>sys_syncthaw_supe
On 14/08/2012 15:28, Daniel Pocock wrote:
If I create 10 LVs today, with btrfs on each,
From my understanding of Btrfs, it achieve good write performance by
making near all writes "sequential". But if you split your disk in 10
sub-parts, and set btrfs on each of them, writes operations of Bt
On 12/08/12 22:48, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 11:46 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>>
>>
>> I notice this question on the wiki/faq:
>>
>>
>> https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/UseCases#What_is_best_practice_when_partitioning_a_device_that_holds_one_or_more_btr-filesystems
>
Il 14/08/2012 07:01, liub.li...@gmail.com ha scritto:
From: Liu Bo
I found this while testing xfstests 068, the story is
t1t2
sys_syncthaw_super
iterate_supers
down_read(sb->s_umount)
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 01:44:02AM +0200, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote:
> On 2012-07-16 20:30, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote:
> >
> > As stated in the README this version is significantly faster (typically more
> > than 2 times faster!) than the current version, has been thoroughly tested
> > on
On Mon, 2012-08-13 at 05:48 +0700, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 11:46 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> > d) what about booting from a btrfs system? Is it recommended to follow
> > the ages-old practice of keeping a real partition of 128-500MB,
> > formatting it as btrfs, even if a
On 2012-08-14 05:15, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 01:44:02AM +0200, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> as suggested on the mailing list I have converted the updated LZO
>> code into git, so please pull my "lzo-update" branch from
>>
>> git://github.com/markus-oberhumer
On Wed, August 08, 2012 at 20:55 (+0200), Mark Fasheh wrote:
> +/*
> + * btrfs_insert_inode_extref() - Inserts an extended inode ref into a tree.
> + *
> + * The caller must have checked against BTRFS_LINK_MAX already.
> + */
> +static int btrfs_insert_inode_extref(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
It should be "clear" instead of "set" for clear_extent_bits.
Signed-off-by: Wang Sheng-Hui
---
extent_io.c |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/extent_io.c b/extent_io.c
index ebb35b2..638ee0e 100644
--- a/extent_io.c
+++ b/extent_io.c
@@ -195,7 +195,7 @@ sta
24 matches
Mail list logo
