On 10/3/2017 2:11 PM, Hugo Mills wrote:
Hi, Stephen,
On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 08:52:04PM +, Stephen Nesbitt wrote:
Here it i. There are a couple of out-of-order entries beginning at 117. And
yes I did uncover a bad stick of RAM:
btrfs-progs v4.9.1
leaf 2589782867968 items 134 free
All:
I came back to my computer yesterday to find my filesystem in read only
mode. Running a btrfs scrub start -dB aborts as follows:
btrfs scrub start -dB /mnt
ERROR: scrubbing /mnt failed for device id 4: ret=-1, errno=5
(Input/output error)
ERROR: scrubbing /mnt failed for device id 5:
all over the tree?
>
> I can see 3 potential options:
>
> 1) I could just pull these into the branch that Stephen is already
> picking up for file-locks in my tree
>
> 2) I could put them into a new branch, and have Stephen pull that one in
> addition to the file-locks branch
not documented. Can someone tell me where to find a list of
feature priorities or when this might be done.
Thank you,
Stephen
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.
rnel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git next
>
> I've got the sample resolution in next-merge:
>
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git next-merge
>
> Please let us know if you have any problems.
A bit of a mess, but I sorted it o
Yeah I think the Gotchas page would be a good place to give people a
heads up.
--
Stephen Williams
steph...@veryfast.biz
On Sat, Mar 26, 2016, at 09:58 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 8:00 AM, Stephen Williams <steph...@veryfast.biz>
> wrote:
>
> >
admins crying over this.
--
Stephen Williams
steph...@veryfast.biz
On Sat, Mar 26, 2016, at 11:51 AM, Patrik Lundquist wrote:
> So with the lessons learned:
>
> # mkfs.btrfs -m raid10 -d raid10 /dev/sdb /dev/sdc /dev/sdd /dev/sde
>
> # mount /dev/sdb /mnt; dmesg | tail
>
see this quite a
lot where a drive is beyond dead - The OS will literally not detect it.
At this point would the Raid10 array be beyond repair? As you need the
drive present in order to mount the array in degraded mode.
--
Stephen Williams
steph...@veryfast.biz
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016, at 02:57
Hi,
Find instructions on how to recreate below -
I have a BTRFS raid 10 setup in Virtualbox (I'm getting to grips with
the Filesystem)
I have the raid mounted to /mnt like so -
[root@Xen ~]# btrfs filesystem show /mnt/
Label: none uuid: ad1d95ee-5cdc-420f-ad30-bd16158ad8cb
Total
can immediately
try any proposed patches or fixes (or provide more insight into the
subvolume this problem occurs with).
Numerous other subvolumes in the same BTRFS partition work flawlessly
using btrfs send/receive.
The sending partition is RAID0 with two 512GB SSD drives. The receiving
partition is
Stephen R. van den Berg wrote:
>I'm running 4.4.0-rc7.
>This exact problem was present on 4.0.5 and 4.3.3 too though.
>I do a "btrfs send /var/lib/lxc/template64/rootfs", that generates
>the following error consistently at the same file, over and over again:
>Dec 29 14:
for that. It seems to have merged OK but maybe it conflicts
with something later in linux-next. Unfortunately see my other email
about a build problem. I will keep this example merge in mind for
later.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au
--
To unsubscribe from
/36729191/
My setup is two 2TB hard drives in raid 1. They are both sata drives so
as far as I know the USB disconnect line isn't referring to btrfs.
output of df -h:
/dev/sdb1 3.7T 3.2T 371G 90% /mount/point
I haven't figured out how to reproduce the bug.
-- Stephen
--
To unsubscribe from this list
to me. Please ask Stephen to include the tree in
linux-next, for a 3.7 merge.
I'd ask you to include my lzo-update branch in linux-next:
git://github.com/markus-oberhumer/linux.git lzo-update
I have added this from today.
Thanks for adding your subsystem tree as a participant of linux
: 'btrfs_super_release' defined but not used
fs/btrfs/sysfs.c:160:13: warning: 'btrfs_root_release' defined but not used
I have started using gcc v4.5.2 (instead of v4.4.4) if that makes a
difference.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au
at
the SELinux code I expect that there is a problem there as well.
Thank you.
kernel version(s)?
reproducer?
--
Stephen Smalley
National Security Agency
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info
On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 10:03 -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
On 4/28/2011 6:30 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 20:15 -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
I have been tracking down an problem that we've been seeing
with Smack on top of btrfs and have narrowed it down to a check
On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 13:13 -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 10:03 -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
On 4/28/2011 6:30 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 20:15 -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
I have been tracking down an problem that we've been seeing
Running with lockdep I see these warnings (running 2.6.37-rc1)
It occurred during the time when rsync is running backup.
Nov 14 12:03:31 nehalam kernel: [ 5527.284541]
=
Nov 14 12:03:31 nehalam kernel: [ 5527.284544] [ INFO: possible recursive
I got namespace.pl working again, and it showed the following
routines could be declared static.
fs/btrfs/ctree
btrfs_clear_path_blocking
btrfs_insert_some_items
btrfs_prev_leaf
fs/btrfs/delayed-ref
btrfs_delayed_ref_pending
fs/btrfs/dir-item
btrfs_match_dir_item_name
Sorry about emailing the list about this but after doing some googling i
can't seem to find the answer.
Im just wondering if subvolumes or snap shot can have quotas imposed on
them.
The wiki says that:
Subvolumes can be given a quota of blocks, and once this quota is
reached no new writes are
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 20:06:04 -0800 Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd prefer that it go into linux-next in the usual fashion. But the
first step is review..
OK, I wasn't sure where it was up to (not being a file system person).
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell[EMAIL
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:02:04 -0600
Joe Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris Mason wrote:
On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 16:48 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
I have a system with a pair of small/fast but unreliable scsi drives.
I tried setting up a raid1 configuration and using it for builds
On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 12:20:32 -0400
Chris Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2008-09-08 at 12:13 -0400, jim owens wrote:
Chris Mason wrote:
My guess is that the improvement happens mostly from the first couple of
tries,
not from repeated spinning. And since it is a mutex, you
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:21:22 -0400
Chris Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2008-08-14 at 11:06 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
So, the question is why the kernel compile workload works for me. What
kind of hardware are you running (ram, cpu, disks?)
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU
25 matches
Mail list logo
