Hi,
after my machine hung during btrfs filesystem balance /mnt, I am now
unable to mount the filesystem due to a segmentation fault. Is there
any hope of gaining access to the filesystem? What more should I send
to help diagnose the bug? (I am aware that an fs can get corrupted,
but this should
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Hubert Kario h...@qbs.com.pl wrote:
On Wednesday 17 March 2010 09:48:18 Heinz-Josef Claes wrote:
Hi,
just want to add one correction to your thoughts:
Storage is not cheap if you think about enterprise storage on a SAN,
replicated to another data centre.
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 5:19 PM, Chris Mason chris.ma...@oracle.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 11:51:35AM +0100, Leszek Ciesielski wrote:
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 1:45 AM, Chris Mason chris.ma...@oracle.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 10:34:22AM +0100, Leszek Ciesielski wrote:
(My
(My previous post seems to have been discarded because of the
attachment size, I'm resending it without the dmesg output - which can
be found @ http://pastebin.com/T0J3z59j )
Hi,
yesterday I updated my kernel (clean clone from
mason/btrfs-unstable.gi), pulling in the single latest change I have
mismatch);
+// goto zeroit;
kunmap_atomic(kaddr, KM_USER0);
good:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Leszek Ciesielski skol...@gmail.com wrote:
(My previous post seems to have been discarded because of the
attachment size, I'm resending it without the dmesg output - which
The 'used' output of df on a btrfs system does not take metadata into
account. So the disk is really full. This is what my yesterdays path
is intended to fix - can you try it out?
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Boyd Waters waters.b...@gmail.com wrote:
I believe there is a kerneloops associated
The patch is here: http://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/81547/ , it's for kernel.
But I have just seen weird behaviour with my btrfs, I'm not sure
whether it's my patch or the new changes I have pulled from git - I'd
recommend you wait with trying out this patch until someone diagnoses
what failed
);
buf-f_bavail = buf-f_bfree;
buf-f_bsize = dentry-d_sb-s_blocksize;
buf-f_type = BTRFS_SUPER_MAGIC;
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 2:21 PM, jim owens jow...@hp.com wrote:
Leszek Ciesielski wrote:
Hi,
the results of running 'df' against a btrfs volume are somewhat
unintuitive from
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:55 AM, Thomas Kupper tho...@kupper.org wrote:
Using btrfs as the root filesystem on my Ubuntu 9.10 powered laptop I
discoverd that mount is not showing the actual passed rootflags= but shows
what is put in the /etc/fstab.
First of all, I'm not sure if that is an
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Thomas Kupper tho...@kupper.org wrote:
On 22 Jan 2010, at 09:59, Leszek Ciesielski wrote:
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:55 AM, Thomas Kupper tho...@kupper.org wrote:
Using btrfs as the root filesystem on my Ubuntu 9.10 powered laptop I
discoverd that mount
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Thomas Kupper tho...@kupper.org wrote:
On 22 Jan 2010, at 10:17, Leszek Ciesielski wrote:
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Thomas Kupper tho...@kupper.org wrote:
On 22 Jan 2010, at 09:59, Leszek Ciesielski wrote:
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:55 AM, Thomas
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 6:56 AM, TARUISI Hiroaki
taruishi.hir...@jp.fujitsu.com wrote:
Btrfs collects block device information when mount or mkfs
(device_list_add in volumes.c), and know devid-device relation
by collected information. So, if we make filesystem on plain
file, btrfs cannot know
Hi,
after adding a second device to a btrfs filesystem (kernel 2.6.31)
used for root fs, I am getting a No filesystem could mount root
message upon reboot. Is the caveat
btrfsctl -a is used to scan all of the block devices under /dev and
probe for Btrfs volumes. This is required after loading
Hi,
the results of running 'df' against a btrfs volume are somewhat
unintuitive from a user point of view. On a single drive btrfs volume,
created with 'mkfs.btrfs -m raid1 -d raid1 /dev/sda6', I am getting
the following result:
/dev/sda6 1.4T 594G 804G 43% /mnt
while
14 matches
Mail list logo
