Re: Unable to open ctree

On Sun, 2 Oct 2016 13:29:56 -0600 Chris Murphy wrote: > Well short of a bug, the problem aren't the checksums. The problem is > the metadata is wrong, so if you recalculate checksums you're likely > end up with an even more corrupted file system because it'll start out >

Re: OS X Time Machine and BTRFS

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 15:06:39 -0600 Chris Murphy wrote: > First question is if the directory containing the sparsebundle file > has xattr +C set on it? It's not xattr, but chattr. "xattr" manages "extended attributes", i.e. arbitrary name=value pairs you can set on a

Re: [RFC] Preliminary BTRFS Encryption

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 11:12:13 +1000 Dave Chinner wrote: > > As of now these patch set supports encryption on per subvolume, as > > managing properties on per subvolume is a kind of core to btrfs, which is > > easier for data center solution-ing, seamlessly persistent and easy

Re: 4.4.0 - no space left with >1.7 TB free space left

On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 16:53:32 +0500 Roman Mamedov <r...@romanrm.net> wrote: > On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 20:36:26 +0900 > Tomasz Chmielewski <t...@virtall.com> wrote: > > > On 2016-02-08 20:24, Roman Mamedov wrote: > > > > >> Linux 4.4.0 - btrfs i

Re: btrfs partition fails to mount after power outage

On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 12:30:35 + Malte Westerhoff wrote: > parent transid verify failed on 7375567323136 wanted 52059 found 52045 > parent transid verify failed on 7375567323136 wanted 52059 found 52045 > Error: could not find btree root extent for root 12974 >

Re: Issue: errno:28 (No space left on device)

On Tue, 9 Aug 2016 09:39:45 -0400 Noah Massey wrote: > Since your data and metadata profiles are both 'single', you may want > to consider creating the filesystem with the --mixed option, which > allows / forces BTRFS to use a single collection of data blocks for > both

Re: btrfs won't mount to /home

On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 22:45:13 +0900 Tomasz Chmielewski wrote: > So, weird, isn't it? > > What's wrong there? Your systemd unmounts it immediately from /home, search the archives there's been a funny story like that recently. -- With respect, Roman pgpUH09kQqplk.pgp

Re: FYI: *buntu - btrfs kernel error

On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 20:09:55 +0200 g6094...@freenet.de wrote: > he guys, > > yes i know its *buntu xenial and nobody knows what they have backported, > but maybe its still interesting for someone That's not an error, but just a warning that some operation was taking so long, that the kernel

Re: Adventures in btrfs raid5 disk recovery

On Sun, 19 Jun 2016 23:44:27 -0400 Zygo Blaxell wrote: > It's not going well so far. Pay attention, there are at least four > separate problems in here and we're not even half done yet. > > I'm currently using kernel 4.6.2 with btrfs fixes forward-ported from >

Re: Can't remove read-only snapshot with immutable flag set

On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 08:37:57 + cdlscpmv wrote: > It happened that I set the immutable flag (via `chattr +i`) on a subvolume. > Then I made a read-only snapshot of that subvolume. Now I can't remove > this snapshot. > > #> btrfs subvolume delete my_snapshot >

Re: [PATCH v7 0/8] Inband dedupe for btrfs-progs

On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 14:32:10 -0700 Mark Fasheh wrote: > Can we please have seperate and obvious namespaces for in-band dedupe and > out-of-band dedupe commands? I realize that there is no oob-dedupe > funcationality in btrfs-progs today but I would like to avoid confusing > users

Re: btrfs stability

On Fri, 27 May 2016 00:42:07 +0200 Diego Torres wrote: > Btrfs is the only fs that can add drives one by one to an existing raid > setup, and use the new space inmediately, without replacing all the drives. Ext4, XFS, JFS or pretty much any FS which can be resized

Re: BTRFS Data at Rest File Corruption

On Wed, 11 May 2016 13:36:23 -0500 Richard Lochner wrote: > Recently, a scrub returned an unrecoverable error on that file. > Again, the file has not been modified since it was originally copied > and has the time stamp from December. Furthermore, SMART tests (long) > for

Checking if two files share extents

Hello, I'm writing a simple custom deduplication script, and faced a problem with how to make it skip already deduped files. E.g., if I do cp -a --reflink fileA fileB ...after this, how to check if fileA and fileB refer to the same extents on disk? I tried comparing the outputs of "filefrag

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: Uncorrectable errors after rebooting with Magic Sysrq Keys

On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 17:42:21 +0200 Niccolò Belli wrote: > Hi, > Is it 100% safe to run a btrfs check without --repair? > Because otherwise I will have to wait for my new external drive to arrive > and make a backup first. In cases like these remember that you can use

Re: 4.4.0 - no space left with >1.7 TB free space left

On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 20:36:26 +0900 Tomasz Chmielewski <t...@virtall.com> wrote: > On 2016-02-08 20:24, Roman Mamedov wrote: > > >> Linux 4.4.0 - btrfs is mainly used to host lots of test containers, > >> often snapshots, and at times, there is heavy IO in many of

Re: How to cancel btrfs balance on unmounted filesystem

On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 08:21:12 +0200 Marc Haber wrote: > the balance restarts immediately after mounting You can use the skip_balance mount option to prevent that. -- With respect, Roman pgpGkbeeS9Inh.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature

"Fixed", Re: parent transid verify failed on snapshot deletion

On Sat, 12 Mar 2016 20:48:47 +0500 Roman Mamedov <r...@romanrm.net> wrote: > The system was seemingly running just fine for days or weeks, then I > routinely deleted a bunch of old snapshots, and suddenly got hit with: > > [Sat Mar 12 20:17:10 2016] BTRFS error (device dm-

Re: parent transid verify failed on snapshot deletion

On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 15:52:52 -0600 Chris Murphy wrote: > I really think you need a minute's worth of kernel messages prior to > that time stamp. There was no messages a minute, or even (from memory) many hours prior to the crash. If there was something even remotely

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: fix performance regression of writing to prealloc/nocow file

On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 15:16:15 -0700 Liu Bo wrote: > For nocow/prealloc files, we try our best to not allocate space, however, > this ends up a huge performance regression since it's expensive to check > if data is shared. > > Let's go back to only go check shared data once

Re: task btrfs-cleaner:770 blocked for more than 120 seconds.

On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 09:18:14 +0500 Михаил Гаврилов wrote: > Yesterday btrfs again hangs on kernel 4.4.5 > It's the same or another problem? Seems different to me, as there's also defrag involved. Try removing and not using the defrag mount option. > This messages

Re: parent transid verify failed on snapshot deletion

On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 14:10:47 -0600 Chris Murphy wrote: > I'm going to guess it's a metadata block, and the profile is single. > Otherwise, if it were data it'd just be a corrupt file and you'd be > told which one is affected. And if metadata had more than one copy, >

Re: parent transid verify failed on snapshot deletion

On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 17:03:54 + (UTC) Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > With backups I'd try it, if only for the personal experience value and to > see what the result was. But that's certainly more intensive "surgery" > on the filesystem than --repair, and I'd only do it either for

Re: parent transid verify failed on snapshot deletion

On Sat, 12 Mar 2016 22:15:24 +0500 Roman Mamedov <r...@romanrm.net> wrote: > Seems like it should be safe to run --repair? Well this is unexpected, I ran --repair, and it did not do anything. # btrfsck --repair /dev/alpha/lv1 enabling repair mode Checking filesystem on /dev/alpha

Re: parent transid verify failed on snapshot deletion

Hello, btrfsck output: # btrfsck /dev/alpha/lv1 Checking filesystem on /dev/alpha/lv1 UUID: 8cf8eff9-fd5a-4b6f-bb85-3f2df2f63c99 checking extents parent transid verify failed on 7483566862336 wanted 410578 found 404133 parent transid verify failed on 7483566862336 wanted 410578 found 404133

parent transid verify failed on snapshot deletion

Hello, The system was seemingly running just fine for days or weeks, then I routinely deleted a bunch of old snapshots, and suddenly got hit with: [Sat Mar 12 20:17:10 2016] BTRFS error (device dm-0): parent transid verify failed on 7483566862336 wanted 410578 found 404133 [Sat Mar 12 20:17:10

Re: [bug] df returns 100% used for empty mixed block group filesystem

On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 01:24:44 -0700 Chris Murphy wrote: > kernel 4.5.0 rc7 > btrfs-progs-4.4.1-1 > > Summary: A new empty mixed block group "-M" filesystem shows up as > 100% full with regular df (gnu coreutils 8.24). Pretty sure this is > not a regression, but no

Re: dstat shows unexpected result for two disk RAID1

On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 15:25:19 -0500 Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > grr. Gmail is terrible :-/ > > I understood that a btrfs RAID1 would at best grab one block from sdb > and then one block from sdd in round-robin fashion, or at worse grab > one chunk from sdb and then one chunk

Re: ENOSPC while creating snapshot

On Fri, 04 Mar 2016 22:10:57 +0100 ne...@smoula.net wrote: > Hello, > > I'm encountering weird enospc problem while writing to filesystem and > creating snapshot at a same time: > > Steps to reproduce: > > start writing data to filesystem: > > # LC_ALL=C dd if=/dev/zero of=/foobar > dd:

Re: [PATCH 1/3] btrfs: Continue write in case of can_not_nocow

On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 19:00:17 +0800 Zhao Lei wrote: > btrfs failed in xfstests btrfs/080 with -o nodatacow. > > Can be reproduced by following script: > DEV=/dev/vdg > MNT=/mnt/tmp > > umount $DEV &>/dev/null > mkfs.btrfs -f $DEV > mount -o nodatacow $DEV $MNT >

Re: task btrfs-cleaner:770 blocked for more than 120 seconds.

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 13:32:24 -0800 Liu Bo wrote: > Hi Mike, > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 12:23:16AM +0500, Михаил Гаврилов wrote: > > Sorry, I have not yet had time to apply your patch. > > > > And get hang again when launch web browser. > > > > Here new logs: > >

Re: 4.4.0 - no space left with >1.7 TB free space left

On Mon, 08 Feb 2016 21:15:38 +0900 Tomasz Chmielewski wrote: > With the last error, a snapshot was made at around 06:06 > "no space left" was reported on 06:14. If you mean the log that you have posted in your original message, the ENOSPC happened at 06:06 and 14 seconds, not

Re: 4.4.0 - no space left with >1.7 TB free space left

On Mon, 08 Feb 2016 18:22:34 +0900 Tomasz Chmielewski wrote: > Linux 4.4.0 - btrfs is mainly used to host lots of test containers, > often snapshots, and at times, there is heavy IO in many of them for > extended periods of time. btrfs is on HDDs. > > > Every few days I'm

Re: https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org having OCSP issues?

On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 09:20:09 + (UTC) Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > Firefox is currently giving me OCSP errors for the wiki. Links has no > problem, presumably because it doesn't validate the cert or ignores OCSP > timeouts, but lynx is throwing errors as well, so it's not just

Deadlock after upgrade to 4.1

Hello, On the first or second night after upgrade from a 3.18.21 kernel to 4.1.15, during concurrent heavy file operations (pruning old backups), I got into this deadlock(?). After these messages any attempt to write to the affected filesystem would hang indefinitely, system load went to ~37,

Timeouts copying large files to a Samba server with Btrfs

Hello, Sometimes when I copy large files (the latest case was with a 13 GB file) to a Btrfs-residing share on a Samba file server (using Thunar file manager), the copy process fails around the end with following messages in dmesg on the client: [7699154.504380] CIFS VFS: sends on sock

Re: [PATCH v2] btrfs: Introduce new mount option to disable tree log replay

On Tue, 8 Dec 2015 14:10:33 +0800 Qu Wenruo wrote: > Introduce a new mount option "nologreplay" to co-operate with "ro" mount > option to get real readonly mount, like "norecovery" in ext* and xfs. Maybe name it "norecovery" too, for simplicity and consistency? The

Re: implications of mixed mode

On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 10:21:31 +0800 Qu Wenruo wrote: > And some extra pros and cons due to fixed(4K) small(compared to 16K > default) nodesize: > > + A little higher performance >node/leaf size is restricted to sectorsize, smaller node/leaf, >smaller range to

Re: Kernel 3.19 and still "disk full" even though 'btrfs fi df" reports enough room left?

On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 19:53:03 +0100 linux-btrfs.tebu...@xoxy.net wrote: > $ uname -a > Linux neptun 3.19.0-31-generic #36~14.04.1-Ubuntu SMP Thu Oct 8 > 10:21:08 UTC 2015 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux For whatever unknown reason, Ubuntu repeatedly chooses to stabilize on exactly the wrong

Re: Ideas for btrfs-convert fix(or rework)

On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 08:27:49 -0500 Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: > know of (Arch and Gentoo), because the very fact that you installed a > system with either one means that you are fully capable of backing up > your data, and reprovisioning the system using BTRFS instead of

Re: Ideas for btrfs-convert fix(or rework)

On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:16:26 +0800 Qu Wenruo wrote: > So if things are correct, the btrfs you converted should still be in > mixed-bg mode. > A recent 'btrfs fi df' command should show things like: > Data+Metadata, DUP: total=512.00MiB, used=68.23MiB Actually not quite.

Re: Ideas for btrfs-convert fix(or rework)

On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 14:27:41 +0800 Qu Wenruo wrote: > But without such work, btrfs-convert will always be a mess and no > real support for balance. I wonder, what happened to the current btrfs-convert? Perhaps a couple of years ago I converted a 7TB and ~70%

Re: trying to balance, filesystem keeps going read-only.

On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 06:24:53 -0500 Ken Long wrote: > Well, one drive is 8TB with a 5TB partition. Is this by any chance a Seagate "SMR" drive? From what I remember seeing on the list, those do not work well with Btrfs currently, with symptoms very similar to what you're

Re: trying to balance, filesystem keeps going read-only.

On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 09:07:08 -0500 Ken Long wrote: > Yes, the one drive is that Seagate 8TB drive.. > > Smart tools doesn't show anything outrageous or obvious in hardware. > > Is there any other info I can provide to isolate, troubleshoot further? > > I'm not sure how

Re: BTRFS raid 5/6 status

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 06:11:49 +0200 audio muze wrote: > Before I go down this road I'd appreciate thoughts/ suggestions/ > alternatives? Have I left anything out? Most importantly is btrfs > raid6 now stable enough to use in this fashion? I would suggest going with Btrfs

Re: BTRFS as image store for KVM?

On Mon, 05 Oct 2015 11:43:18 +0300 Erkki Seppala wrote: > Lionel Bouton writes: > > > 1/ AFAIK the kernel md RAID1 code behaves the same (last time I checked > > you need 2 processes to read from 2 devices at once) and I've never seen > >

Re: Too many missing devices, writeable mount is not allowed

On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 23:45:44 +0200 Marcel Bischoff wrote: > Hello all, > > I have kind of a serious problem with one of my disks. > > The controller of one of my external drives died (WD Studio). The disk > is alright though. I cracked open the case, got the drive out

Re: Latest kernel to use?

On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 09:12:15 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > I'll just say that my btrfs stability has gone WAY up when I stopped > following this advice and instead followed a recent longterm. Right > now I'm following 3.18. There were some really bad corruption issues

Re: RAID1 storage server won't boot with one disk missing

On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 19:00:08 +0200 Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: > On 2015-09-17 17:18, Anand Jain wrote: > > it looks like -o degraded is going to be a very obvious feature, > > I have plans of making it a default feature, and provide -o > > nodegraded feature instead.

Re: Unmountable btrfs after power failure

On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 17:19:51 + Hugo Mills wrote: >The bug you've hit is almost certainly fixed in more recent > kernels. I can't recommend stongly enough that you upgrade it (or > contact your vendor's support department to find out how they will > support your use of

Re: Understanding BTRFS storage

On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 10:50:12 +0200 George Duffield forumscollect...@gmail.com wrote: Running a traditional raid5 array of that size is statistically guaranteed to fail in the event of a rebuild. Yeah I consider RAID5 to be safe up to about 4 devices. As you already have 5 and looking to

Re: Btrfs duperemove corrupt data while dedup

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 22:33:38 +0300 Timofey Titovets nefelim...@gmail.com wrote: what i've got (full diff in attach): --- /home/nefelim4ag/dedup.after2015-08-26 21:36:55.773452558 +0300 +++ /home/nefelim4ag/dedup.before 2015-08-26 21:21:01.203600761 +0300 @@ -25139,9 +25139,9 @@

Re: Understanding BTRFS storage

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 10:56:03 +0200 George Duffield forumscollect...@gmail.com wrote: I'm looking to switch from a 5x3TB mdadm raid5 array to a Btrfs based solution that will involve duplicating a data store on a second machine for backup purposes (the machine is only powered up for backups).

Re: Response to Bcachefs Claims

On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 11:22:34 -0400 (EDT) Vincent Olivier vinc...@up4.com wrote: UUID= won't work for unknown reasons (haven't got a reply on this, maybe it's the same as LABEL=). And I will use /dev/* in fstab for stability reasons. Take a look at the contents of /dev/disk/by-id/,

Re: BTRFS cannot remove empry directory pretending it is not empty

On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 11:15:23 +0200 Swâmi Petaramesh sw...@petaramesh.org wrote: Le vendredi 21 août 2015 10:47:45 Karsten Heymann a écrit : did you check with lsof that no process has an open file descriptor in that directory? Yes, I even renamed it and rebooted the machine to be

Re: btrfs subvolume clone or fork (btrfs-progs feature request)

On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 08:48:00 -0400 Austin S Hemmelgarn ahferro...@gmail.com wrote: On 2015-07-09 08:41, Sander wrote: Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote (ao): What's wrong with btrfs subvolume snapshot? Well, personally I would say the fact that once something is tagged as a snapshot, you can't

Re: Btrfs - distribute files equally across multiple devices

On Mon, 6 Jul 2015 18:22:52 +0200 Johannes Pfrang johannespfr...@gmail.com wrote: The simplest implementation would probably be something like: Always write files to the disk with the least amount of space used. I think this may be a valid software-raid use-case, as it combines RAID 0 (w/o

Re: kernel 4.1: no space left on device

On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 17:32:04 +0200 Stefan Priebe s.pri...@profihost.ag wrote: Hi, while having some big btrfs volumes (44TB + 37TB). I see on a regular basis the no space left on device message. I'm only able to fix this. By running btrfs balance AND unmounting and remounting the btrfs

Re: Is there a nossd option ?

On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 19:13:10 +0200 Swâmi Petaramesh sw...@petaramesh.org wrote: Hi, Running a 3.19 Ubuntu kernel, I'm currently budling a RAID-1 BTRFS set for which every underlying device is a LUKS-encrypted device itself built out of a bcache device comprised of a mechanical HD

Re: Is there a nossd option ?

On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 20:11:25 +0200 Swâmi Petaramesh sw...@petaramesh.org wrote: Le dimanche 21 juin 2015 22:31:21 Roman Mamedov a écrit : Yes the nossd option (written literally like that) does in fact exist. It would have taken you less time to try if it works, than to write this long

Re: Plans for a library for btrfs?

On Wed, 27 May 2015 14:31:28 +0200 Stef Bon stef...@gmail.com wrote: This program, which I've called fuse-backup, creates backup subvolumes and snapshots by calling an extrenal script, which does something like: btrfs subvolume snapshot -r %PathToBackup%/ %PathToSnapshot% This works

Re: btrfs freeze/thaw when using with LVM2

On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 14:55:49 + Hugo Mills h...@carfax.org.uk wrote: This is strange considering that I wanted a consistent snapshot of entire btrfs filesystem at volume level. Is there a way to achive this? or btrfs just cannot provide? No, there's no way to manage it with the

Re: [PATCH] btrfs-progs: optionally enforce chroot for btrfs receive

On Sun, 19 Apr 2015 14:46:28 +0300 Lauri Võsandi lauri.vosa...@gmail.com wrote: This patch forces btrfs receive to issue chroot before parsing the btrfs stream using command-line flag -C to confine the process and minimize damage that could be done via malicious btrfs stream.

Re: Btrfs-cleaner FS DoS issues

On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 13:41:21 +1200 Matt Grant m...@mattgrant.net.nz wrote: Hi! When ever I delete a large snapshot this stalls all the processes on my system for 30 minutes plus, kernel v19.2. Btrfs-cleaner is taking 100% CPU when completely stalled. Every few minutes its say 99.8% and

Re: Please add 9c4f61f01d269815bb7c37be3ede59c5587747c6 to stable

On Thu, 2 Apr 2015 10:17:47 -0400 Chris Mason c...@fb.com wrote: Hi stable friends, Can you please backport this one to 3.19.y. It fixes a bug introduced by: 381cf6587f8a8a8e981bc0c18859b51dc756, which was tagged for stable 3.14+ The symptoms of the bug are deadlocks during log

Re: [PATCH v3] btrfs-progs: Doc: Add warning and note on btrfs-convert.

On Fri, 3 Apr 2015 15:06:46 +0800 Qu Wenruo quwen...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote: +WARNING: If one hopes to rollback to ext2/3/4, he or she should not execute It also seems a bit awkward to spell out he or she, if you want to refer to a user without specifying the gender, in software documentation

Re: Btrfs hangs 3.19-10

On Thu, 2 Apr 2015 11:46:08 + Hugo Mills h...@carfax.org.uk wrote: On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 02:38:24PM +0300, Timofey Titovets wrote: I've get it several times, after rebooting or unclean shutdown system. This is very strange bug, because if i reboot, and mount it from live cd, all

Re: btrfs balance fails with no space errors (despite having plenty)

On Tue, 24 Mar 2015 22:25:30 + Kline, Matthew matthew.kl...@flukenetworks.com wrote: Sorry to necrobump this, but the issue came up again. I'm now on Linux 3.19.2 with btrfs-progs 3.19, and I converted my work laptop from ext4 to btrfs. Same issue - the conversion goes well, removing the

Re: btrfs balance fails with no space errors (despite having plenty)

On Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:09:47 + Kline, Matthew matthew.kl...@flukenetworks.com wrote: Data, single: total=44.00GiB, used=43.37GiB System, single: total=32.00MiB, used=12.00KiB Metadata, single: total=2.00GiB, used=876.84MiB GlobalReserve, single: total=296.00MiB, used=0.00B Total

Re: Upgrade to 3.19.2 Kernel fails to boot

On Sun, 22 Mar 2015 22:15:47 +0100 Ochi o...@arcor.de wrote: When I upgrade to the 3.19.2 Kernel I get a deadlocked boot: INFO: task mount:302 blocked for more than 120 seconds. INFO: task btrfs-transacti:329 blocked for more than 120 seconds. I had a similar behavior today after I

Re: New tool to recursive compress / decompress of files

On Sat, 21 Mar 2015 18:56:12 +0100 Petr Bena benap...@gmail.com wrote: unlike NTFS, compressing files in btrfs is not so simple There shouldn't be any need to micro-manage compression on Btrfs on a per-folder or per-file basis. Just mount the whole volume as compress=[method] (but not

Re: Accepting discard to free space from disk images

On Mon, 09 Feb 2015 10:26:33 -0500 Devon B. devo...@virtualcomplete.com wrote: If you don't mind me asking, what version kernel are you running and are you using any special mount options? Well actually I did not claim I have working discard through 'loop', but your post made me curious. $

Re: Accepting discard to free space from disk images

On Mon, 9 Feb 2015 20:42:56 +0500 Roman Mamedov r...@romanrm.net wrote: On Mon, 09 Feb 2015 10:26:33 -0500 Devon B. devo...@virtualcomplete.com wrote: If you don't mind me asking, what version kernel are you running and are you using any special mount options? Well actually I did

Re: Accepting discard to free space from disk images

On Mon, 09 Feb 2015 12:07:18 -0500 Devon B. devo...@virtualcomplete.com wrote: Thanks for your testing. I haven't tried 3.14. I tried on CentOS 6 box (2.6.32 - which is experimental) and Ubuntu 14.04 (3.13) and neither worked. So the question remains, what is the difference? Possibly a

Re: Accepting discard to free space from disk images

On Mon, 09 Feb 2015 00:17:49 -0500 Devon B. devo...@virtualcomplete.com wrote: Looking to use btrfs with disk images that contain ext4, xfs, and other possible filesystems. One of my main concerns is reclaiming disk space when files are deleted on the disk image's filesystem. Using fstrim on

Re: I need to P. are we almost there yet?

On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 13:11:57 + (UTC) Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote: What about using btrfs on top of MD raid? The problem with that is data integrity. mdraid doesn't have it. btrfs does. Most importantly however, you aren't any worse off with Btrfs on top of MD, than with Btrfs

Re: should I use btrfs on Centos 7 for a new production server?

On Wed, 31 Dec 2014 16:28:17 + (UTC) Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote: I also noticed that they mention reiserfs as btrfs-convert-ready. That I didn't know. I thought btrfs-convert only supported ext*. This might have been a mistake, or they have their own very special fork of it.

Re: 3.16.3: fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c:1410 btrfs_assert_delayed_root_empty

On Sun, 28 Dec 2014 11:26:14 -0800 Marc MERLIN m...@merlins.org wrote: Not sure if it's useful to anyone, but there you go. This happened after a forced power cycle: BTRFS info (device dm-1): disk space caching is enabled [ cut here ] WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 778 at

WARNING btrfs_assert_delayed_root_empty

Hello, Using kernel 3.14.25; I was doing multiple snapshot deletions and at the same time deletion of multiple trees in remaining snapshots, in parallel (3 'rm -rf' running in background). All of this lead to soft lock-up of one CPU, with warnings every 22-23 seconds and no activity on disks.

Re: Possible to undo subvol delete?

On Mon, 1 Dec 2014 18:49:23 +0530 Shriramana Sharma samj...@gmail.com wrote: As I requested there, I prefer for confirmation by default and -f to force otherwise, rather than behaviour of rm which requires -i to ask confirmation. And I prefer the current behavior (also replied on the bug). A

Re: Possible to undo subvol delete?

On Mon, 1 Dec 2014 14:38:16 +0100 MegaBrutal megabru...@gmail.com wrote: I've also noticed, a subvolume can just be deleted with an rm -r, just like an ordinary directory. I'd consider to only allow subvolume deletions with exact btrfs subvolume delete commands, and they This is already the

Re: pro/cons of raid1 with mdadm/lvm2

On Sun, 30 Nov 2014 12:11:47 +0100 Gour g...@atmarama.net wrote: However, I wonder if there are some 'cons' in having raid-1 partition under mdadm and not using native mirroring capabilities of btrfs fs? Pros: * mdadm RAID has much better read balancing; Btrfs reads are satisfied from

Can't cp --reflink files on a Ext4-converted FS w/o checksums

Hello, I used btrfs-convert to switch my FS from Ext4 to Btrfs. As it was a rather large 10 TB filesystem, to save on the conversion time, I used the -d, disable data checksum option of btrfs-convert. Turns out now I can't cp --reflink any files that were already on the FS prior to conversion.

Re: Can't cp --reflink files on a Ext4-converted FS w/o checksums

On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 15:18:26 -0800 Robert White rwh...@pobox.com wrote: So you _could_ reflink the file but you'd have to do it to another file with no data checksums -- which basically means a NOCOW file, or mounting with nodatasum while you do the reflink, but now you have more problem

Re: Can't cp --reflink files on a Ext4-converted FS w/o checksums

On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 16:00:23 -0800 Robert White rwh...@pobox.com wrote: Uh... you may _still_ have no checksums on any of those data extents. They are not going to come back until you write them to a normal file with a normal copy. So you may be lacking most of the data validation features

Re: Can't cp --reflink files on a Ext4-converted FS w/o checksums

On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 16:20:44 -0800 Robert White rwh...@pobox.com wrote: I did some double checking and I think you'll find that if you lsattr those files they still have the C (NoCOW) attribute, which also means they are still unsummed. Indeed, I looked at the top level only, which had just

Re: Changing label few times killed filesystem?

On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 01:27:17 + Boris Chernov aqs1...@hotmail.com wrote: I have changed file system label few times in total. When I tried to mount it after that, it became not mountable: # mount /dev/sdb1 /mnt mount: Not a directory I'd say that implies something is wrong with

Re: scrub implies failing drive - smartctl blissfully unaware

On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 09:29:54 +0200 Brendan Hide bren...@swiftspirit.co.za wrote: Hey, guys See further below extracted output from a daily scrub showing csum errors on sdb, part of a raid1 btrfs. Looking back, it has been getting errors like this for a few days now. The disk is

Re: RAID1 fails to recover chunk tree

On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 21:26:06 -0700 Robert White rwh...@pobox.com wrote: On 10/30/2014 07:09 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: Is hard to say. If a balance hasn't recently been done, the original device may have a good amount of free space in allocated chunks. I'm pretty sure Btrfs will write first

Transaction commit in btrfs sub del

Hello, I was under impression that the Transaction commit: setting in 'btrfs sub del' finally allows us to make it not return until all free space from the snapshots that are being deleted, is completely freed up. However that does not seem to be the case at all, deleting 14 snapshots with a

Re: Transaction commit in btrfs sub del

On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 17:44:46 +0200 Piotr Pawłow p...@siedziba.pl wrote: On 23.10.2014 16:24, Roman Mamedov wrote: I was under impression that the Transaction commit: setting in 'btrfs sub del' finally allows us to make it not return until all free space from the snapshots that are being

inode_cache Re: strange 3.16.3 problem

On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:50:37 + (UTC) Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote: (FWIW I wish that mount option would just go away as it would definitely remove an invitation to a Russian roulette party with their data for the unwary, but I suppose there's someone paying some bills somewhere that

Re: What is the vision for btrfs fs repair?

On Fri, 10 Oct 2014 12:53:38 +0200 Bob Marley bobmar...@shiftmail.org wrote: On 10/10/2014 03:58, Chris Murphy wrote: * mount -o recovery Enable autorecovery attempts if a bad tree root is found at mount time. I'm confused why it's not the default yet. Maybe it's continuing to

Empty directory can't be removed, not empty

Hello, After an improper shutdown (power loss), I got one of these again: # ls -la junk/ total 0 drwx-- 1 rm rm 4152 Oct 5 18:44 . drwxr-xr-x 1 root root 72 Oct 5 19:10 .. # rm -rvf junk/ rm: cannot remove `junk': Directory not empty The kernel version is 3.4.18. If this helps,

Re: ENOSPC on mostly empty file system

On Tue, 9 Sep 2014 22:57:25 +0100 Hugo Mills h...@carfax.org.uk wrote: On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 11:49:10PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: Ok, now I'm in the bad state again (after running a 'make allmodconfig' kernel build: Label: none uuid: 1d88cccb-3d0e-42d9-8252-a226dc5c2e47

Re: Questions on using BtrFS for fileserver

On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 18:21:52 +0200 M G Berberich bt...@oss.m-berberich.de wrote: · BtrFS with RAID1 is fairly stable. Maybe, but it's not optimized for performance: reads are not balanced in the most optimal way, and writes may end up being submitted sequentially rather than in parallel to two

Re: Large files, nodatacow and fragmentation

On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 11:36:46 -0700 G. Richard Bellamy rbell...@pteradigm.com wrote: I've been playing with btrfs as a backing store for my KVM images. I've used 'chattr +C' on the directory where those images are stored. You can see my recipe below [1]. I've read the gotchas found here [2]

Re: [PATCH] btrfs-progs: wait until all subvolumes are cleaned

On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 22:56:13 +0200 David Sterba dste...@suse.cz wrote: Enhance the 'subvolume' subcommand to wait until a given list of subvolumes or all currently scheduled for deletion are cleaned completely from the filesystem. Signed-off-by: David Sterba dste...@suse.cz --- 'wait'

Re: 1 week to rebuid 4x 3TB raid10 is a long time!

On Sun, 20 Jul 2014 21:15:31 +0200 Bob Marley bobmar...@shiftmail.org wrote: Hi TM, are you doing other significant filesystem activity during this rebuild, especially random accesses? This can reduce performances a lot on HDDs. E.g. if you were doing strenous multithreaded random writes in

<    1   2   3   4   >