Hi all,
I tried to replace a failed device in a btrfs filesystem on Linux kernel 3.8.4.
After adding a new harddisk (/dev/sdf) to the btrfs pool and removing
the failed device with btrfs device delete missing /btrfs the server
panicked.
We can still mount the filesystem in degraded mode, what are
This is fixed with patch
[PATCH] Btrfs: compare relevant parts of delayed tree refs
in 3.9 upgrade should help.
On 21/05/2013 16:37, Joeri Vanthienen wrote:
Hi all,
I tried to replace a failed device in a btrfs filesystem on Linux kernel 3.8.4.
After adding a new harddisk (/dev/sdf) to
Hi,
I just built and installed kernel v3.9.3 (was using v3.9.0 before) and
if I do a git fetch on a quite small (1MB) directory, the system
starts thrashing and I can't even kill -9 git.
It's a btrfs partition with no fancy mount options (just relatime) on
a core i7 with 8GB RAM, Debian testing.
On 21/05/13 04:37, Chris Murphy wrote:
On May 20, 2013, at 7:08 PM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Chris Murphy posted on Sun, 19 May 2013 12:18:19 -0600 as
excerpted:
It seems inconsistent that mount and unmount allows a /dev/
designation, but only mount honors label and UUID.
Duncan,
Thanks for quiet a historical summary.
Yep, ReiserFS has stood the test of time very well and I'm still using
and abusing it still on various servers all the way from something like
a decade ago!
More recently I've been putting newer systems on ext4 mainly to take
advantage of extents
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 05:53:10AM -0600, Matteo Fortini wrote:
Hi,
I just built and installed kernel v3.9.3 (was using v3.9.0 before) and
if I do a git fetch on a quite small (1MB) directory, the system
starts thrashing and I can't even kill -9 git.
It's a btrfs partition with no fancy mount
In my case, I am backing up a system spanning five drives formatted
btrfs, on a separate drive containing a separate backup volume and
multiple complete backups, each from a different point in time. This
gives me protection from filesystem corruption, since the backups are on
a separate
Hi,
The following series of patches implements in btrfs an ioctl to do
offline deduplication of file extents.
To be clear, offline in this sense means that the file system is
mounted and running, but the dedupe is not done during file writes,
but after the fact when some userspace software
The range locking in btrfs_ioctl_clone is trivially broken out into it's own
function. This reduces the complexity of btrfs_ioctl_clone() by a small bit
and makes that locking code available to future functions in
fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
Signed-off-by: Mark Fasheh mfas...@suse.de
---
fs/btrfs/ioctl.c |
There's some 250+ lines here that are easily encapsulated into their own
function. I don't change how anything works here, just create and document
the new btrfs_clone() function from btrfs_ioctl_clone() code.
Signed-off-by: Mark Fasheh mfas...@suse.de
---
fs/btrfs/ioctl.c | 232
We want this for btrfs_extent_same. Basically readpage and friends do their
own extent locking but for the purposes of dedupe, we want to have both
files locked down across a set of readpage operations (so that we can
compare data). Introduce this variant and a flag which can be set for
This patch adds an ioctl, BTRFS_IOC_FILE_EXTENT_SAME which will try to
de-duplicate a list of extents across a range of files.
Internally, the ioctl re-uses code from the clone ioctl. This avoids
rewriting a large chunk of extent handling code.
Userspace passes in an array of file, offset pairs
Zach Brown z...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 07:44:05PM +, Eric Wong wrote:
Why introduce a new syscall instead of extending sys_splice?
Personally, I think it's ugly to have different operations use the same
syscall just because their arguments match.
Fair enough. I
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 07:47:19PM +, Eric Wong wrote:
Zach Brown z...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 07:44:05PM +, Eric Wong wrote:
Why introduce a new syscall instead of extending sys_splice?
Personally, I think it's ugly to have different operations use the same
Ping...
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 8:59 AM, zwu.ker...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Zhi Yong Wu wu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
The patchset is trying to introduce hot tracking function in
VFS layer, which will keep track of real disk I/O in memory.
By it, you will easily know more details about disk
From: Cheng Yang chenyang.f...@cn.fujitsu.com
This patch adds the function to check correspondence
between block group, chunk and device extent.
Signed-off-by: Cheng Yang chenyang.f...@cn.fujitsu.com
Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong wangsl-f...@cn.fujitsu.com
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo
On Tue, 21 May 2013 10:39:21 +0800, Wei Yongjun wrote:
From: Wei Yongjun yongjun_...@trendmicro.com.cn
Fix to return error code instead always return 0 from function
btrfs_check_trunc_cache_free_space().
Introduced by commit 7b61cd92242542944fc27024900c495a6a7b3396
(Btrfs: don't use global
On May 21, 2013, at 8:06 AM, Martin m_bt...@ml1.co.uk wrote:
On 21/05/13 04:37, Chris Murphy wrote:
I'm going to contradict myself and point out that mount with label or
UUID is made unambiguous via either the default subvolume being
mounted, or the -o subvol= option being specified. The
Dear BTRFS-Community,
attached is a patch that probably could be applied upstream:
It is ... Fixing unaligned memory accesses ...
Details to this patch could be read under
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=656955
I rechecked against latest git.
As far as I can see, it's not
19 matches
Mail list logo
