On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 10:45:37 + (UTC)
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Russell Coker posted on Fri, 18 Jul 2014 14:35:20 +1000 as excerpted:
Daily snapshots work welk with kernel 3.14 and above (I had problems
with 3.13 and previous). I have snapshots every 15 mins on some subvols.
On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 05:34:22 -0700
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Effectively, admins can choose NOCOW XOR frequent-snapshotting, altho
the fact that snapshots stop at subvolume borders can be used as a
partial workaround, by putting NOCOW files on a dedicated partition and
not
On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 04:26:43 + (UTC)
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Russell Coker posted on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 10:51:00 +1000 as excerpted:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 20:30:32 Zack Coffey wrote:
Can I get more protection by using more than 2 drives?
I had an onboard RAID a few years
Hello,
With kernel 3.14.5...
$ sudo umount /mnt/net/alpha/11
umount: /mnt/net/alpha/11: not mounted
$ sudo mount -o inode_cache,space_cache,compress=lzo,noatime,nossd,skip_balance
/dev/nbd11 /mnt/net/alpha/11
$ sudo mount | grep nbd11
/dev/nbd11 on /mnt/net/alpha/11 type btrfs
On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 12:42:00 +0200
Gerald Hopf gerald.h...@nv-systems.net wrote:
The -d single allocator is useless (or broken?).
It's just not designed with your use case in mind. It operates on the level of
allocation extents (if I'm not mistaken), not of whole files.
If you want to join
On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 11:28:00 +0100
Filipe David Borba Manana fdman...@gmail.com wrote:
In btrfs the block size (called sector size in btrfs) can not be
smaller then the page size.
Just in case anyone misses this, there is some work to address this limitation:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2014 06:44:13 -0700
George Mitchell geo...@chinilu.com wrote:
On 06/22/2014 12:49 AM, Imran Geriskovan wrote:
The 64KB Btrfs bootloader pad is 8 sector aligned, so for 512e AF disks
there's no problem formatting the whole drive. The alignment problem
actually happens when
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 06:47:27 -0400
Zack Coffey click...@gmail.com wrote:
I tried to create a simple RAID1 for metadata and somehow lost access
to everything on the drive. The RAID1 for just metadata created just
fine, everything was fine for a day, so I turned off the drive that
was just
Hello,
Not sure if this has been reported somewhere closer to Btrfs development, and
not just in Debian... Anyways, just now I (also) hit this bug when upgrading my
kernel from 3.12.21 to 3.14.5 on one machine (but not on a number of others):
On Fri, 6 Jun 2014 19:31:37 +0100
WorMzy Tykashi wormzy.tyka...@gmail.com wrote:
My solution was to write a patch for mkinitcpio (Arch initrd creation
tool) [1] so that it explicitly adds the crc32c module to the initrd
if btrfs is needed. I imagine it wouldn't be difficult to add the same
On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 07:56:32 -0700
Marc MERLIN m...@merlins.org wrote:
However SSDs, especially at least earlier models of the one you got, still
randomly die, and take your data with them.
Yeah, a PSA of sorts: take whatever SSDs you have and use, and go to the
manufacturer's website (right
On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 05:27:33 +0700
Fajar A. Nugraha l...@fajar.net wrote:
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 5:15 AM, Igor M igor...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
Why btrfs becames EXTREMELY slow after some time (months) of usage ?
# btrfs fi show
Label: none uuid: b367812a-b91a-4fb2-a839-a3a153312eba
On Mon, 26 May 2014 14:28:51 +0200
David Bloquel david.bloq...@jimywoo.fr wrote:
[69537.117439] Not tainted 3.12-0.bpo.1-amd64 #1
Try upgrading to the kernel 3.14. From what I can tell it has significant
improvements/bugfixes in the snapshot deletion area. Just a couple of days ago
I got
On Mon, 26 May 2014 22:39:16 +0600
Roman Mamedov r...@romanrm.net wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2014 14:28:51 +0200
David Bloquel david.bloq...@jimywoo.fr wrote:
[69537.117439] Not tainted 3.12-0.bpo.1-amd64 #1
Try upgrading to the kernel 3.14. From what I can tell it has significant
On Fri, 16 May 2014 17:36:57 -0400
Austin S Hemmelgarn ahferro...@gmail.com wrote:
It's similar (writes to just one drive, while the other is idle) when
removing (many) snapshots.
Not sure if that's optimal behaviour.
I think, after having looked at some of the code, that I know
On Wed, 21 May 2014 21:14:07 -0500
Eric Sandeen sand...@redhat.com wrote:
(Random aside: why does btrfs support online fs relabeling, anyway?)
-Eric
Online you mean when mounted ?
Yep - I'm just not sure who would ever want to do that.
Aren't labels primarly used for mounting,
On Tue, 20 May 2014 01:04:30 +0800
Anand Jain anand.j...@oracle.com wrote:
From: Anand Jain anand.j...@oracle.com
generally if you use
echo test /sys/fs/btrfs/fsid/label
it would introduce return char at the end and it can not
be part of the label. The correct command is
echo -n test
On Mon, 05 May 2014 06:13:30 +0200
Brendan Hide bren...@swiftspirit.co.za wrote:
1) There will be a *very* small performance penalty (negligible, really)
Oh, really, it's slower to mount the device directly? Not that I really
care, but that's unexpected.
Um ... the penalty is if you're
On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 10:23:46 -0700
Marc MERLIN m...@merlins.org wrote:
Is anyone else using btrfs on top of dmcrypt and software raid 5?
I use Btrfs accessed via NBD over a LAN, physically stored on mdadm RAID5, a
setup which is similar to yours in that the block device used for Btrfs has a
On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 12:19:05 -0600
Justin Brown otakujunct...@gmail.com wrote:
I've a 18 tera hardware raid 5 (areca ARC-1170 w/ 8 3 gig drives) in
Do you sleep well at night knowing that if one disk fails, you end up with
basically a RAID0 of 7x3TB disks? And that if 2nd one encounters
On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 07:27:06 + (UTC)
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Based on what I've read on-list, btrfs is not arch-agnostic, with certain
on-disk sizes set to native kernel page size, etc, so a filesystem
created on one arch may well not work on another.
Question: Does this
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:44:36 -0700
Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
the VM managing application needs to set +C on image files
It's a slippery slope, why not instigate that every program from now on has
to set +C on its user files? Or where do we stop, probably the browser should
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 18:57:03 +0100
Goffredo Baroncelli kreij...@libero.it wrote:
On 02/13/2014 10:00 PM, Roman Mamedov wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 20:49:08 +0100
Goffredo Baroncelli kreij...@libero.it wrote:
Thanks for the comments, however I don't like du not usage; but you are
right
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 20:19:50 +0100
Goffredo Baroncelli kreij...@libero.it wrote:
Signed-off-by: Goffredo Baroncelli kreij...@inwind.it
---
cmds-fi-disk_usage.c | 428
+++
cmds-fi-disk_usage.h | 3 +
cmds-filesystem.c| 3 +
utils.c
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 20:20:12 +0100
Goffredo Baroncelli kreij...@libero.it wrote:
Signed-off-by: Goffredo Baroncelli kreij...@inwind.it
---
cmds-device.c| 3 ++
cmds-fi-disk_usage.c | 136
+++
cmds-fi-disk_usage.h | 3 ++
3
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 20:49:08 +0100
Goffredo Baroncelli kreij...@libero.it wrote:
Thanks for the comments, however I don't like du not usage; but you are right
when you don't like disk-usage. What about btrfs filesystem chunk-usage ?
Personally I don't see the point of being super-pedantic
On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 00:02:38 + (UTC)
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Meanwhile, you said it yourself, users aren't normally concerned about
this.
I think you're being mistaken here, the point that users aren't looking at
the free space, hence it is not important to provide a correct
On Sun, 9 Feb 2014 06:38:53 + (UTC)
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
RAID or multi-device filesystems aren't 1970s features and break 1970s
behavior and the assumptions associated with it. If you're not prepared
to deal with those broken assumptions, don't. Use mdraid or dmraid or
On Fri, 7 Feb 2014 12:08:12 +0600
Roman Mamedov r...@romanrm.net wrote:
Earlier conventions would have stated Size ~900GB, and Avail ~900GB. But
that's not exactly true either, is it?
Much better, and matching the user expectations of how RAID1 should behave,
without a major gotcha
On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 21:32:42 +0100
Kai Krakow hurikhan77+bt...@gmail.com wrote:
It should show the raw space available. Btrfs also supports compression and
doesn't try to be smart about how much compressed data would fit in the free
space of the drive. If one is using RAID1, it's supposed to
On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 22:35:40 +0100
Kai Krakow hurikhan77+bt...@gmail.com wrote:
Imagine the future: Btrfs supports different RAID levels per subvolume. We
need to figure out where to place a new subvolume. I need raw numbers for
it. Df won't tell me that now. Things become very difficult
On Sun, 09 Feb 2014 00:32:47 +0100
Kai Krakow hurikhan77+bt...@gmail.com wrote:
When I started to use unix, df returned blocks, not bytes. Without your
proposed patch, it does that right. With your patch, it does it wrong.
It returns total/used/available space that is usable/used/available
On Sun, 09 Feb 2014 00:17:29 +0100
Kai Krakow hurikhan77+bt...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear employees,
Please keep in mind that when you run out of space on the fileserver
'\\DepartmentC', when you free up space in the directory '\PublicStorage7'
the free space you gain on '\StorageArchive' is
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 09:38:15 +0200
Brendan Hide bren...@swiftspirit.co.za wrote:
This is a known issue:
https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/FAQ#Why_does_df_show_incorrect_free_space_for_my_RAID_volume.3F
Btrfs is still considered experimental
It's long overdue to start tackling these
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 20:54:19 +0100
Goffredo Baroncelli kreij...@libero.it wrote:
I agree with you about the needing of a solution. However your patch to me
seems even worse than the actual code.
For example you cannot take in account the mix of data/linear and
metadata/dup (with the
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014 22:30:46 -0700
Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
From the original post, context is a 2x 1TB raid volume:
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/sda2 1.8T 1.1M 1.8T 1% /mnt/p2
Earlier conventions would have stated Size ~900GB, and
Hello,
On a freshly-created RAID1 filesystem of two 1TB disks:
# df -h /mnt/p2/
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/sda2 1.8T 1.1M 1.8T 1% /mnt/p2
I cannot write 2TB of user data to that RAID1, so this estimate is clearly
misleading. I got tired of looking at the
Hello,
My server had a period of instability (PSU-related issues), some lockups,
some strange crashes, and some files became corrupted, and perhaps parts of
a filesystem too. One BTRFS partition now fails with the following errors.
On an attempt to make a snapshot:
[ 48.035664] btrfs: corrupt
On Tue, 4 Feb 2014 16:32:35 +
Hugo Mills h...@carfax.org.uk wrote:
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 10:23:10PM +0600, Roman Mamedov wrote:
Hello,
My server had a period of instability (PSU-related issues), some lockups,
some strange crashes, and some files became corrupted, and perhaps parts
On Wed, 29 Jan 2014 15:50:29 +0100
Adam Ryczkowski adam.ryczkow...@statystyka.net wrote:
I have two independent Linux installations my notebook, both sharing the
same btrfs partition as root file system
!!!
1) I accidentally ran the other system, which wasn't hibernated
!
Ubuntu
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 12:13:09 -0700
Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
On Jan 9, 2014, at 6:31 PM, George Mitchell geo...@chinilu.com wrote:
Jim, my point was that IF the drive does not successfully resolve the bad
block issue and btrfs takes a write failure every time it
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 12:29:28 -0800
George Mitchell geo...@chinilu.com wrote:
what we are lacking at this point is a SMART capability to provide
visual notifications to the user when any hard drive starts to seriously
degrade or suddenly fails.
You can configure smartd (from smartmontools)
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 14:05:11 -0700
Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
On Jan 14, 2014, at 12:37 PM, Roman Mamedov r...@romanrm.net wrote:
I vaguely remember having some drives that were not able to remap a single
block on write, but doing that successfully if I overwrote
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 14:37:46 -0700
Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
Reserve sectors are fundamental to ECC. If there are no more reserves, the
status should be a failed drive, it can no longer do its own relocation of
data experiencing transient read errors in this case.
With the
On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 19:48:55 +0100
Szalma László dbl...@dblaci.hu wrote:
2014-01-11 18:10 keltezéssel, MegaBrutal írta:
How can I shrink the FS to the correct size right now, ensuring that I
really shrink it to the exact LV size?
btrfs fi re 10G /dev/mapper/vg-lv
lvresize -L 10G vg/lv
On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 14:26:19 + (UTC)
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
IOW, your backups shouldn't be btrfs, because btrfs itself is testing,
and any data stored on it is by definition testing-only data you don't
particularly care about, either because you have good tested-restorable
On Mon, 06 Jan 2014 00:36:22 +0200
Brendan Hide bren...@swiftspirit.co.za wrote:
I had 8x 1.5TB WD1500EARS drives in an mdRAID5 array. With it I had a
single 250GB IDE disk for the OS. When the very old IDE disk inevitably
died, I decided to use a spare 1.5TB drive for the OS. Performance
On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 17:59:07 +0100
David Sterba dste...@suse.cz wrote:
Subvolume deletion does not do a full transaction commit. This can lead
to an unexpected result when the system crashes between deletion and
commit, the subvolume directory will appear again. Add options to request
On Fri, 22 Nov 2013 21:26:16 + (UTC)
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
During testing I found that the NOCOW flag prevents file cloning from
working. cp --reflink fails with EINVAL when the source file has the
NOCOW flag set.
That would be expected, since disabling COW means the
On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 23:52:01 +0300
Timofey Titovets nefelim...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello, i suggest temporary solution to use swap file under btrfs.
I test it, and it work good.
I invent simple the way, how create and using swap file, just see
following sh code:
swapfile=$(losetup -f) #free
On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 11:48:21 -0400
Josef Bacik jba...@fusionio.com wrote:
Whoever wrote this was braindead.
You do realize you sent a number of people googling for Delalloc is such a
pain. If we have a hole and we have pending just out of curiosity? :))
--
With respect,
Roman
signature.asc
On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 21:05:33 -0700
David Madden d...@mersenne.com wrote:
I'd like to use BTRFS to do something like the old NetApp snapshot
system: every hour or so, there'd be a snapshot, then the 23 of the
snapshots during a day would be deleted, leaving just a day snapshot,
then after a
On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 11:23:04 +0200
Stefan Behrens sbehr...@giantdisaster.de wrote:
On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 09:13:24 +0800, Wang Shilong wrote:
On 10/11/2013 01:40 AM, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
I have a question in my mind.
Can we reach a state that there is operation in progress when
On Thu, 5 Sep 2013 15:54:07 +0100
Hugo Mills h...@carfax.org.uk wrote:
On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 05:43:27PM +0300, Тимофей Титовец wrote:
Hello guys, i try to convert ext4 volume, but btrfs-convert show me error:
No valid Btrfs found on file
unable to open ctree
conversion aborted.
On Thu, 5 Sep 2013 16:30:23 +0100
Hugo Mills h...@carfax.org.uk wrote:
Nope, just today I saw someone report the same problem in a blog comment:
http://popey.com/blog/2013/09/02/fun-with-btrfs-on-ubuntu/#comment-9704
It's the same person, in fact.
FWIW both names are Cyrillic but they
On Fri, 10 May 2013 07:03:38 -0700
George Mitchell geo...@chinilu.com wrote:
One the things that is frustrating me the most at this point from a user
perspective regarding btrfs is the current lack of virtual devices to
describe volumes and subvolumes.
From a user perspective btrfs
On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 09:48:55 +0200
Harald Glatt m...@hachre.de wrote:
At some point 'btrfs send' stopped working but gave no better error
message than invalid argument.
Usually in cases like this there are more details in 'dmesg'.
I did a balance on the drive which resulted in a kernel panic
On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 13:19:13 +0200
Harald Glatt m...@hachre.de wrote:
You're right, I'm seeing this 'object already exists' message in my
dmesg log. Nice catch!!
See this thread:
http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org/msg23514.html
This patch fixes the problem:
Hello,
With kernel 3.7.10 patched with Btrfs: limit the global reserve to 512mb.
(the problem was occuring also without this patch, but seemed to be even worse).
At the start of balance:
Data: total=31.85GB, used=9.96GB
System: total=4.00MB, used=16.00KB
Metadata: total=1.01GB, used=696.17MB
On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:04:52 +0600
Roman Mamedov r...@romanrm.ru wrote:
With kernel 3.7.10 patched with Btrfs: limit the global reserve to 512mb.
(the problem was occuring also without this patch, but seemed to be even
worse).
At the start of balance:
Data: total=31.85GB, used=9.96GB
On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 09:46:26 -0400
Josef Bacik jba...@fusionio.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 02:04:52AM -0600, Roman Mamedov wrote:
Hello,
With kernel 3.7.10 patched with Btrfs: limit the global reserve to 512mb.
(the problem was occuring also without this patch, but seemed
On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 10:24:39 +0200
Swâmi Petaramesh sw...@petaramesh.org wrote:
Goodbye BTRFS, hello ZFS :-)
I'm finally making the move, I couldn't stand the terrible BTRFS
performance anymore, and spending 2 long minutes waiting for the HD LED
to come off everytime I clicked anywhere.
On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 04:36:05 +0600
Roman Mamedov r...@romanrm.ru wrote:
Hello,
After a reboot the filesystem now does not mount at all, with similar
messages.
So thinking this was an isolated incident, I foolishly continued setting up
scheduled balance on other systems with btrfs that I
On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 09:31:10 -0400
Josef Bacik jba...@fusionio.com wrote:
Can you capture an image of these broken file systems the next time it
happens?
You'll need to clone the progs here
git://github.com/josefbacik/btrfs-progs.git
and build and then run
btrfs-image -w /dev/whatever
On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 20:46:45 -0400
Josef Bacik jba...@fusionio.com wrote:
I just posted a patch for this bug, I can mount your image now without it
panicing and it passes fsck on either side of the mount. Let me know if it
doesn't work for you. Thanks,
Thank you, it now mounted and works
Hello,
Trying to balance a 2TB filesystem on the 3.8.5 kernel:
Label: 'p2' uuid: 01f6cc8b-d305-40e1-bac8-8fdd548f611e
Total devices 1 FS bytes used 1.32TB
devid1 size 1.80TB used 1.37TB path /dev/sda2
System: total=4.00MB, used=156.00KB
Data+Metadata: total=1.37TB,
On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 15:34:06 -0400
Josef Bacik jba...@fusionio.com wrote:
A user reported a problem where he was getting early ENOSPC with hundreds of
gigs of free data space and 6 gigs of free metadata space. This is because
the
global block reserve was taking up the entire free metadata
On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 12:48:54 -0500
Eric Sandeen sand...@redhat.com wrote:
diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/btrfs.txt
b/Documentation/filesystems/btrfs.txt
index 7671352..02a19c8 100644
--- a/Documentation/filesystems/btrfs.txt
+++ b/Documentation/filesystems/btrfs.txt
Is anyone
On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 20:42:28 +0100
Stefan Priebe s.pri...@profihost.ag wrote:
I might be wrong here, but doesn't this
rsync: rename
/mnt/.software/kernel/linux-3.9-rc3/drivers/infiniband/hw/amso1100/.c2_ae.h.WEhLGP
-
.software/kernel/linux-3.9-rc3/drivers/infiniband/hw/amso1100/c2_ae.h:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 12:19:18 -0600
Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
195 Hardware_ECC_Recovered 0x001a 057 055 000Old_age Always
- 63508940
With such high ECC recovered events, I suspect SDC.
If it's a Seagate drive, this is absolutely normal.
All
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 22:31:08 -0700
Michael Johnson - MJ m...@revmj.com wrote:
What I now suspect is going on is that while deleting the snapshots
was quick, that probably kicks of a background thread which actually
does the heavy lifting.
Exactly that, the snapshot deletion only syncs on
On Sat, 2 Mar 2013 10:07:45 + (UTC)
Gabriel de Perthuis g2p.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
I have a filesystem that has become unusable because of a balance I can't
stop. It is very close to full, and the balance is preventing me from
growing it.
It was started like this:
sudo btrfs
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:42:02 +0100
Martin Steigerwald mar...@lichtvoll.de wrote:
Are you sure about the partition support? I thought something related to
loop partition support has gone into some not so recent kernel.
Sorry, you are correct, this was in fact added since 2.6.26.
Just tried
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 13:23:23 +1100
Fajar A. Nugraha l...@fajar.net wrote:
Not to mention the hassle in accessing the data if it resides on a
partition inside the file (e.g. you need losetup + kpartx to access it,
and you must remember to do the reverse when you're finished with it).
In
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 21:35:08 -0800
Suman C schakr...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, zvol like feature where a btrfs subvolume like construct can be
made available as a LUN/block device. This device can then be used by
any application that wants a raw block device. iscsi is another
obvious usecase.
On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 18:54:49 +
Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
Btrfs has been broken for me for ages. I first reported it on this
list 5 months ago[1]. Below is a very simple reproducer that anyone
can run.
*NB* before you run this, adjust /dev/sda /dev/sda1 to point to
On Tue, 05 Feb 2013 10:16:34 +
Tomasz Kusmierz tom.kusmi...@gmail.com wrote:
that I was using one of those fantastic pci 4 port ethernet cards and
printer was directly to it - after moving it and everything else to
switch all problem and issues have went away. AT the moment I'm running
On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 00:03:52 +0100
Ian Kumlien po...@demius.net wrote:
This patch moves btrfsck in to btrfs fsck.
Does the ...fs fs.. combination look less than ideally beautiful to anyone
else? That's Filesystem abbreviated two times right there.
Who can use an ATM Machine? Someone who knows a
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:32:30 -0500
Gene Czarcinski g...@czarc.net wrote:
This patch hits a lot of files but adds little code. It
could be considered a bugfix, Currently, when one of the
btrfs user-space programs is executed by a regular user,
the result if oftem a number of strange error
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 07:29:44 -0500
Gene Czarcinski g...@czarc.net wrote:
After all, I do not need to be root to execute btrfs --version.
Is that all that comes to mind? I just did
$ dd if=/dev/zero of=fs.img bs=1M count=2048
2048+0 records in
2048+0 records out
2147483648 bytes (2.1 GB)
Hello,
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:17:17 +
Tomasz Kusmierz tom.kusmi...@gmail.com wrote:
this point I was a bit spooked up that my controllers are failing or
Which controller manufacturer/model?
--
With respect,
Roman
~~~
Stallman had a printer,
with code he could
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 15:22:36 +
Tomasz Kusmierz tom.kusmi...@gmail.com wrote:
1) create a single drive default btrfs volume on single partition -
fill with test data - scrub - admire errors.
Did you try ruling out btrfs as the cause of the problem? Maybe something else
in your system is
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 02:28:49 +
Hugo Mills h...@carfax.org.uk wrote:
As long as the start of the partition isn't changed, deleting and
resizing in fdisk isn't damaging. It's just... slightly disconcerting.
:)
For that reason I very much prefer the cfdisk implementation from the
gnu-fdisk
On Sun, 9 Dec 2012 06:17:39 +0100 (CET)
Jan Engelhardt jeng...@inai.de wrote:
On Sunday 2012-10-07 16:48, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
# btrfs su li /
ID 256 top level 5 path UBUNTU
ID 259 top level 5 path UBUNTU/@
ID 261 top level 5 path UBUNTU/@tmp
ID 262 top level 5 path
On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 11:56:39 +
Michael Kjörling mich...@kjorling.se wrote:
On 31 Oct 2012 04:57 -0600, from cwi...@cwillu.com (cwillu):
9.08GB + 992.48MB*2 == 11.02GB
10.85GB + 518MB*2 == 11.86GB
That's nearly a GB smaller.
That, too; I missed the DUP. Not quite as pronounced
On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 08:22:06 +0200
Goffredo Baroncelli kreij...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 1:46 AM, Chris Mason chris.ma...@fusionio.com wrote:
[...]
I like it, thanks. Could you please update btrfs fi df to show this
instead of adding a new command though?
Hi Chris,
no
Hello,
On a 3.6.0-rc7 kernel, I launched:
# btrfs fi balance start -f -mconvert=single /mnt/tmp/
Current situation:
# df -h /mnt/tmp/
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/mapper/alpha-lv1 3.6T 2.7T 801G 78% /mnt/tmp
# btrfs fi df /mnt/tmp/
Data: total=3.00TB,
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 18:44:07 +0200
Goffredo Baroncelli kreij...@inwind.it wrote:
This means that the ration of space physically allocated on the disk and
the space available is 7GB/10GB = 0.7 . So on 135GB of disk, only 94GB
are available.
You assume metadata allocation will always grow
On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 23:02:35 +0200
Goffredo Baroncelli kreij...@libero.it wrote:
Sorry for the space error:
Below a more correct example
$ btrfs filesystem disk-free /
Summary:
Total:135.00GB
Allocated: 10.51GB
Unallocated:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 10:31:41 +0800
Miao Xie mi...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
On tue, 18 Sep 2012 10:30:17 +0900, Hidetoshi Seto wrote:
This patch adds mount-option command.
The command can set/get default mount options.
Now, the command can set/get 24 options.
These options are equal to mount
Hello,
(this is a recap of yesterday's discussion on BTRFS IRC, also to save relevant
pastes before pastebins expire)
I have my /home on btrfs; a cronjob makes one snapshot every 30 minutes; these
snapshots are kept for 24-48 hours, then deleted in batches.
This is a 16K Leaf/Node BTRFS on top
Hello,
I was copying a 60 GB file onto btrfs, and at the same time tried to
stop/restart Squid,
which has its cache on the same partition. Squid locked up until the copying
was finished.
This filesystem was resized by about +100% just before, if this could matter.
The kernel is 3.6.0-rc5. From
On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:46:12 +0800
Liu Bo bo.li@oracle.com wrote:
I try to figure out where goes wrong, but the listed stacks seems to be not
enough for solving the deadlock,
so could you please use a lockdep debug kernel and post the result here?
Hello,
Thanks; I have saved the
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 23:34:49 +0200
Martin Steigerwald mar...@lichtvoll.de wrote:
I wanted to ask about 32k either.
I used 32k on one 2,5 inch external esata disk. But I never measured
anything so far.
I wonder what a good value for SSD might be. I tend to not use anymore
than 16k, but
On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 12:22:31 -0400
Curtis Jones curtis.jo...@gmail.com wrote:
1. is btrfs-convert on /dev/md0
stable/reliable/tested/not-a-stupid-thing-to-do?
btrfs-convert does not care on what kind of block device an FS resides, so it's
OK.
2. based on the reading I've done,
On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 12:22:31 -0400
Curtis Jones curtis.jo...@gmail.com wrote:
4. any other caveats I might want to consider?
One more thing: if you do not fancy waiting for days/weeks for btrfs-convert
to checksum all your existing data, you might want to use
btrfs-convert -d
so that
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 17:06:47 +0200
Johannes Stezenbach j...@sig21.net wrote:
Well, ~2x speedup on x86 is certainly a good achievement, but there
are more ARM based devices than there are PCs, and I guess many
embedded devices use lzo compressed kernels and file systems
while I'm not convinced
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 23:26:42 -0400 (EDT)
serial...@lavabit.com wrote:
1) is there a tool to help me recover data from my fs? I don't have a
backup of my partition table and so I have about 500GB of space where a
few partitionns might reside... GPT partitions mind you
If you only lost the
On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 17:06:24 +0200
Swâmi Petaramesh sw...@petaramesh.org wrote:
Hi,
I've created a small BTRFS filesystem, where metadata+data are mixed
(and metadata are not DUP'ed).
Then I've enlarged the FS to 1 GB ; now I'd like to make it normal
with separate data and metadata, and
Hello,
Suppose I have in /etc/fstab:
/dev/sda2 /mnt/p2 btrfs noatime 0 0
/dev/sda2 /home btrfs subvol=/home0 0
/dev/sda2 /srv btrfs subvol=/srv 0 0
Now I want to add mount options like space_cache and inode_cache. As far
as I
201 - 300 of 336 matches
Mail list logo
