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
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
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
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 +
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
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
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
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