Re: Kernel crash if both devices in raid1 are failing

On 2016-04-18 02:19, Chris Murphy wrote: > With two device failure on raid1 volume, the file system is actually > broken. There's a big hole in the metadata, not just missing data, > because there are only two copies of metadata, distributed across > three drives. Thanks, I understand that. Well,

Re: Install to or Recover RAID Array Subvolume Root?

Nicolas: My flash drive uses BTRFS and I am comfortable with your instructions with one exception. What does "update /etc/default/grub" mean? Currently, I am waiting for a scrub to verify that all is in good order before fixing the problem. On 4/19/16, Nicholas D Steeves

Клиентские базы тел +79133913837 Skype: prodawez389 Email: ammanakuw-7...@yopmail.com тел +79133913837

Соберем для Вас по интернет базу данных потенциальных клиентов для Вашего Бизнеса. По базе можно звонить, писать, слать факсы и email, вести любые прямые активные продажи Ваших товаров и услуг Узнайте подробнее по тел +79133913837 (whatsapp,viber,telegram) Skype: prodawez389 Email:

Re: [resend] btrfs-send -c fails: reproduction case

>>> Reproduction case after running into the same problem as Paride >>> Legovini: >>> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/48706/match=send Your case is not the same as in this thread from Paride IMO. The error message is the same, but that doesn't mean the call tree leading to

Re: Install to or Recover RAID Array Subvolume Root?

On 18 April 2016 at 01:22, David Alcorn wrote: > The goal is to install to a subvolume on the array > without disturbing date on other array subvolumes. > > I erred and shutdown my NAS during a balance. Grub lost track of my > root. Root was on RAID 6 array subvolid 257. I

Re: Install to or Recover RAID Array Subvolume Root?

On 18 April 2016 at 11:52, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > On 2016-04-18 11:39, Chris Murphy wrote: >> >> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn >> wrote: > Like I said in one of my earlier e-mails though, these kind of limitations > are

Greetings!!!

Hi, how are you? My name is J Eric Denials, External Financial Auditor at Lloyds Banking Group plc., London. It is a pleasure to contact you at this time through this medium. I have a cool and legitimate deal to do with you as you're a foreigner, it will be mutually beneficial to both. If

Re: btrfs-image and btrfs send related queries

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Roman Mamedov wrote: > On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 16:13:28 +0200 > Henk Slager wrote: > >> (your email keeps ending up in gmail spam folder) >> >> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 9:24 AM, sri wrote: >> > I tried

Re: btrfs filesystem du - Failed to lookup root id - Inappropriate ioctl for device

the same environment, update to btrfs-progs 4.5.1, new errors in "fi du" $ sudo btrfs fi du /media/RAID/owncloud/ 140.00KiB 0.00B - /media/RAID/owncloud//.snapshot/weekly_2016-03-26_07:56:42/docker/postgres 264.00KiB 0.00B -

Greetings!!!

Hi, how are you? My name is J Eric Denials, External Financial Auditor at Lloyds Banking Group plc., London. It is a pleasure to contact you at this time through this medium. I have a cool and legitimate deal to do with you as you're a foreigner, it will be mutually beneficial to both. If

Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 04/42] fs: have submit_bh users pass in op and flags separately

On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 05:39:24 -0500, mchri...@redhat.com wrote: > From: Mike Christie > > This has submit_bh users pass in the operation and flags separately, > so submit_bh_wbc can setup bio->bi_op and bio-bi_rw on the bio that > is submitted. > > Signed-off-by: Mike

Re: Install to or Recover RAID Array Subvolume Root?

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > On 2016-04-18 11:39, Chris Murphy wrote: >> >> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> I don't know about the current state of the Debian installer,

Re: [PATCH 16/42] nilfs: set bi_op to REQ_OP

On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 14:15:51 -0500, mchri...@redhat.com wrote: > From: Mike Christie > > This patch has nilfs use bio->bi_op for REQ_OPs and rq_flag_bits > to bio->bi_rw. > > Signed-off-by: Mike Christie > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig >

Re: Install to or Recover RAID Array Subvolume Root?

On 2016-04-18 11:39, Chris Murphy wrote: On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: I don't know about the current state of the Debian installer, but I know back when I used Debian regularly and used the standard text based installer, as long as I

Re: Install to or Recover RAID Array Subvolume Root?

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > >> > I don't know about the current state of the Debian installer, but I know > back when I used Debian regularly and used the standard text based > installer, as long as I didn't format things from the UI, I

Re: Install to or Recover RAID Array Subvolume Root?

On 2016-04-18 11:12, Chris Murphy wrote: On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 6:31 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2016-04-18 01:22, David Alcorn wrote: I erred and shutdown my NAS during a balance. Grub lost track of my root. Root was on RAID 6 array subvolid 257. I can boot

Re: Install to or Recover RAID Array Subvolume Root?

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 6:31 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > On 2016-04-18 01:22, David Alcorn wrote: >> >> Debian's default installer (1) can not create a BTRFS raid array >> during installation, and (2) installs to the default subvol of the >> BTRFS target. The default

Re: btrfs-image and btrfs send related queries

On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 16:13:28 +0200 Henk Slager wrote: > (your email keeps ending up in gmail spam folder) > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 9:24 AM, sri wrote: > > I tried btrfs-image and created image file and ran btrfs-image -r to a > > different

Re: btrfs-image and btrfs send related queries

(your email keeps ending up in gmail spam folder) On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 9:24 AM, sri wrote: > I tried btrfs-image and created image file and ran btrfs-image -r to a > different disk. Once recovered and mounted, I can able to see data is > not zeroed out as

Re: RAID5 Unable to remove Failing HD

Le 18/04/2016 10:59, Lionel Bouton a écrit : > [...] > So the obvious thing to do in this circumstance is to delete the drive, > forcing the filesystem to create the missing replicas in the process and > only reboot if needed (no hotplug). Unfortunately I'm not sure of the > conditions where this

Re: [PATCH 11/13] btrfs: introduce device dynamic state transition to offline or failed

Hi Anand, [auto build test ERROR on btrfs/next] [also build test ERROR on v4.6-rc4 next-20160418] [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help improving the system] url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Anand-Jain/Introduce-device-state-failed-spare

Re: Install to or Recover RAID Array Subvolume Root?

On 2016-04-18 01:22, David Alcorn wrote: Debian's default installer (1) can not create a BTRFS raid array during installation, and (2) installs to the default subvol of the BTRFS target. The default subvol is 5 (BTRFS root) unless (i) prior to installation a BTRFS file-system was created, (ii)

Re: Missing device handling

On 2016-04-17 20:55, Chris Murphy wrote: On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:32 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2016-04-09 03:24, Duncan wrote: Yauhen Kharuzhy posted on Fri, 08 Apr 2016 22:53:00 +0300 as excerpted: On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 03:23:28PM -0400, Austin S.

Re: btrfrs send ... | ... receive ... stores files sparsely?

On 2016-04-15 18:04, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: Hi, I happened to notice this when checking free space of my backup and primary system. I'll use an example of a file that won't have any private or confidential information. For du -hc ./var/tmp/kdecache-kdmtjNM8H/icon-cache.kcache; ls -alh

[PATCH 03/13] btrfs: Do per-chunk degraded check for remount

From: Qu Wenruo Just the same for mount time check, use new btrfs_check_degraded() to do per chunk check. Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo Btrfs: use btrfs_error instead of btrfs_err during remount Signed-off-by: Anand Jain

[PATCH 11/13] btrfs: introduce device dynamic state transition to offline or failed

From: Anand Jain This patch provides helper functions to force a device to offline or failed, and we need this device states for the following reasons, 1) a. it can be reported that device has failed when it does b. close the device when it goes offline so that

[PATCH 12/13] btrfs: check device for critical errors and mark failed

From: Anand Jain Write and Flush errors are considered as critical errors, upon which the device will be brought offline and marked as failed. Write and Flush errors are identified using device error statistics. This is monitored using a kthread btrfs_health.

[PATCH 13/13] btrfs: check for failed device and hot replace

From: Anand Jain This patch checks for failed device and kicks out auto replace, if when user decided to disable auto replace it can be done by future sysfs or future ioctl interface to set fs_info->no_auto_replace parameter to 1. Signed-off-by: Anand Jain

[PATCH 10/13] btrfs: introduce helper functions to perform hot replace

From: Anand Jain Hot replace / auto replace is important volume manager feature and is critical to the data center operations, so that the degraded volume can be brought back to a healthy state at the earliest and without manual intervention. This modifies the existing

[PATCH 07/13] btrfs: add check not to mount a spare device

From: Anand Jain Spare devices can be scanned but shouldn't be mountable. Signed-off-by: Anand Jain Tested-by: Austin S. Hemmelgarn --- fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 8 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) diff --git

[PATCH 06/13] btrfs: introduce BTRFS_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_SPARE_DEV

From: Anand Jain Add BTRFS_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_SPARE_DEV (400) flag to identify a spare device. Along with this it checks in the mount context that a spare device will fail to mount. As spare devices aren't mountable. Signed-off-by: Anand Jain

[PATCH 09/13] btrfs: provide framework to get and put a spare device

From: Anand Jain This adds functions to get and put a spare device from the list. So that hot repace code can pick a spare device when needed. Signed-off-by: Anand Jain Tested-by: Austin S. Hemmelgarn --- fs/btrfs/ctree.h

[PATCH v5 00/13] Introduce device state 'failed', spare device and auto replace

Thanks for various comments, tests and feedback. Background: Spare device and Auto replace: Spare device is predominately used to mitigate or narrow the time window of a degraded raid mode, as because during which any further disk failure would lead to a catastrophic data loss. Data center

[PATCH 02/13] btrfs: Do per-chunk check for mount time check

From: Qu Wenruo Now use the btrfs_check_degraded() to do mount time degraded check. With this patch, now we can mount with the following case: # mkfs.btrfs -f -m raid1 -d single /dev/sdb /dev/sdc # wipefs -a /dev/sdc # mount /dev/sdb /mnt/btrfs -o degraded As the

[PATCH 05/13] btrfs: Cleanup num_tolerated_disk_barrier_failures

From: Qu Wenruo As we use per-chunk degradable check, now the global num_tolerated_disk_barrier_failures is of no use. So cleanup it. Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo [Btrfs: resolve conflict to apply 'btrfs: Cleanup

[PATCH 08/13] btrfs: support btrfs dev scan for spare device

From: Anand Jain When the user or system calls the BTRFS_IOC_SCAN_DEV, ioctl this patch will make sure it is added to the device list and set it as spare. This operation will be same when BTRFS_IOC_DEVICES_READY as well since BTRFS_IOC_DEVICES_READY ioctl has been doing

[PATCH 01/13] btrfs: Introduce a new function to check if all chunks a OK for degraded mount

From: Qu Wenruo Introduce a new function, btrfs_check_degradable(), to judge if all chunks in btrfs is OK for degraded mount. It provides the new basis for accurate btrfs mount/remount and even runtime degraded mount check other than old one-size-fit-all method.

[PATCH 04/13] btrfs: Allow barrier_all_devices to do per-chunk device check

From: Qu Wenruo The last user of num_tolerated_disk_barrier_failures is barrier_all_devices(). But it's can be easily changed to new per-chunk degradable check framework. Now btrfs_device will have two extra members, representing send/wait error, set at

[PATCH] btrfs: cleanup assigning next active device with a check

Creates helper fucntion as needed by the device delete and replace operations. Also now it checks if the next device being assigned is an active device. Signed-off-by: Anand Jain --- fs/btrfs/dev-replace.c | 8 +++- fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 51

[PATCH] btrfs: cleanup assigning next active device with a check

Creates helper function as needed by the device delete and replace operations. Also now it checks if the next device being assigned is an active device. Signed-off-by: Anand Jain Reported-by: Yauhen Kharuzhy --- fs/btrfs/dev-replace.c | 8

Re: [PATCH v5 11/13] btrfs: introduce device dynamic state transition to offline or failed

On 04/15/2016 12:56 AM, Yauhen Kharuzhy wrote: On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 06:51:58PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: From: Anand Jain This patch provides helper functions to force a device to offline or failed, and we need this device states for the following reasons, 1) a. it

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: subpage-blocksize: Define extent_buffer_head.

Hi Chandan, [auto build test WARNING on tip/perf/core] [also build test WARNING on v4.6-rc4 next-20160418] [cannot apply to btrfs/next] [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help improving the system] url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Chandan

Re: RAID5 Unable to remove Failing HD

Hi, Le 10/02/2016 10:00, Anand Jain a écrit : > > > Rene, > > Thanks for the report. Fixes are in the following patch sets > > concern1: > Btrfs to fail/offline a device for write/flush error: >[PATCH 00/15] btrfs: Hot spare and Auto replace > > concern2: > User should be able to delete a

Re: [PATCH v4 00/13] Introduce device state 'failed', spare device and auto replace

On 04/15/2016 07:09 AM, Yauhen Kharuzhy wrote: On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 10:15:50PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: Thanks for various comments, tests and feedback. Hmm... Yet another lockdep warning, appeared when I removed target drive during of replacing: Thanks for the report. This is not

[PATCH] btrfs: fix lock dep warning, move scratch dev out of device_list_mutex and uuid_mutex

When the replace target fails, the target device will be taken out of fs device list, scratch + update_dev_time and freed. However we could do the scratch + update_dev_time and free part after the device has been taken out of device list, so that we don't have to hold the device_list_mutex and

[PATCH] btrfs: fix btrfs_check_degradable() to free extent map

I am making the following changes... --- 8< -- Free the extent map and realign the map_tree read_lock to fix the following.. kernel: BUG btrfs_extent_map (Tainted: GB ): Objects remaining in btrfs_extent_map on __kmem_cache_shutdown() kernel:

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: subpage-blocksize: btrfs_punch_hole: Fix uptodate blocks check

Hi Chandan, [auto build test ERROR on btrfs/next] [also build test ERROR on v4.6-rc4 next-20160418] [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help improving the system] url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Chandan-Rajendra/Btrfs-subpage-blocksize

Re: btrfs-image and btrfs send related queries

I tried btrfs-image and created image file and ran btrfs-image -r to a different disk. Once recovered and mounted, I can able to see data is not zeroed out as mentioned in btrfs-image man page. I tried on same machine. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs"

Re: Question: raid1 behaviour on failure

Not quite sure about raid1 behavior. But your "hotplug" seems to be problem. IIRC Btrfs is known to have problem with re-appearing device. If the hot revmoed device is fully wiped before re-plugged, it should not cause the RO mount (abort transaction). BTW, it would be better to post the