Re: ENOSPC at 94% full -- and causing BUGs elsewhere?

2009-10-13 Thread Yan, Zheng
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 12:09 AM, Hugo Mills wrote: > On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 10:58:12PM +0800, Yan, Zheng  wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 10:50 PM, Hugo Mills wrote: >> > On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 06:31:45AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: >> >> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 03:09:35PM +0100, Hugo Mills wr

Re: ENOSPC at 94% full -- and causing BUGs elsewhere?

2009-10-13 Thread Hugo Mills
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 10:58:12PM +0800, Yan, Zheng wrote: > On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 10:50 PM, Hugo Mills wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 06:31:45AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 03:09:35PM +0100, Hugo Mills wrote: > >> > On Sun, Oct 04, 2009 at 08:06:30AM -0400, Chri

Re: ENOSPC at 94% full -- and causing BUGs elsewhere?

2009-10-13 Thread Yan, Zheng
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 10:50 PM, Hugo Mills wrote: > On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 06:31:45AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 03:09:35PM +0100, Hugo Mills wrote: >> > On Sun, Oct 04, 2009 at 08:06:30AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: >> > > On Sat, Oct 03, 2009 at 05:55:32PM -0400, Josef

Re: ENOSPC at 94% full -- and causing BUGs elsewhere?

2009-10-13 Thread Hugo Mills
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 06:31:45AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 03:09:35PM +0100, Hugo Mills wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 04, 2009 at 08:06:30AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 03, 2009 at 05:55:32PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > > > > On Sat, Oct 03, 2009 at 01:21:09PM +

Re: ENOSPC at 94% full -- and causing BUGs elsewhere?

2009-10-13 Thread Chris Mason
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 03:09:35PM +0100, Hugo Mills wrote: > On Sun, Oct 04, 2009 at 08:06:30AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 03, 2009 at 05:55:32PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 03, 2009 at 01:21:09PM +0100, Hugo Mills wrote: > > > >I've just had the following on my

Re: ENOSPC at 94% full -- and causing BUGs elsewhere?

2009-10-12 Thread Hugo Mills
On Sun, Oct 04, 2009 at 08:06:30AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > On Sat, Oct 03, 2009 at 05:55:32PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 03, 2009 at 01:21:09PM +0100, Hugo Mills wrote: > > >I've just had the following on my home server. I believe that it's > > > btrfs that's responsible, as

Re: ENOSPC at 94% full -- and causing BUGs elsewhere?

2009-10-04 Thread Chris Mason
On Sat, Oct 03, 2009 at 05:55:32PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > On Sat, Oct 03, 2009 at 01:21:09PM +0100, Hugo Mills wrote: > >I've just had the following on my home server. I believe that it's > > btrfs that's responsible, as the machine wasn't doing much other than > > reading/writing on a btr

Re: ENOSPC at 94% full -- and causing BUGs elsewhere?

2009-10-03 Thread Josef Bacik
On Sat, Oct 03, 2009 at 01:21:09PM +0100, Hugo Mills wrote: >I've just had the following on my home server. I believe that it's > btrfs that's responsible, as the machine wasn't doing much other than > reading/writing on a btrfs filesystem. The process that was doing so > is now stuck in D+ sta