Re: btrfs on LVM: Out of space

2010-09-09 Thread Marcel Lohmann
2010/9/9 Zhu Yanhai zhu.yan...@gmail.com: 2010/9/9 Marcel Lohmann marcel.lohm...@googlemail.com: 2010/9/8 Zhu Yanhai zhu.yan...@gmail.com: But if it is neccessary to drop that duplicate metadata, how can I arrange this afterwards. And if it is done, then I would have reduced the Metadata

Re: btrfs on LVM: Out of space

2010-09-09 Thread Tamás Gulácsi
You can try -l option of mkfs.btrfs to have all the small files packed in the metadata, not extents. GThomas 2010/9/9 Marcel Lohmann marcel.lohm...@googlemail.com: 2010/9/9 Zhu Yanhai zhu.yan...@gmail.com: 2010/9/9 Marcel Lohmann marcel.lohm...@googlemail.com: 2010/9/8 Zhu Yanhai

Re: btrfs on LVM: Out of space

2010-09-09 Thread Zhu Yanhai
2010/9/9 Marcel Lohmann marcel.lohm...@googlemail.com: 2010/9/9 Zhu Yanhai zhu.yan...@gmail.com: 2010/9/9 Marcel Lohmann marcel.lohm...@googlemail.com: 2010/9/8 Zhu Yanhai zhu.yan...@gmail.com: But if it is neccessary to drop that duplicate metadata, how can I arrange this afterwards. And if

Re: btrfs on LVM: Out of space

2010-09-09 Thread Marcel Lohmann
2010/9/9 Zhu Yanhai zhu.yan...@gmail.com: 200B ~ 2000B is really too small to the modern hard disks (some of them already have 4KB-sectors instead of 512B). I know. But I thought that btrfs is the best FS for handling that. Besides other storage methods than keeping small files on a filesystem.

kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/inode.c:2642!

2010-09-09 Thread Itaru Kitayama
Hi Chris, The latest mmotm on a virtual machine boots, but when I log in I get: [ 82.276418] [ cut here ] [ 82.277565] kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/inode.c:2643! [ 82.278692] invalid opcode: [#1] PREEMPT SMP DEBUG_PAGEALLOC [ 82.280332] last sysfs file:

[PATCH] btrfs: Only BUG_ON when the errno is not ENOENT

2010-09-09 Thread Zhu Yanhai
As Andi Kleen's commit 018db35864fd8d307066485a2753866240c3dace makes btrfs_del_dir_entries_in_log() able to return the real errno instead of a zero, we should only BUG_ON it when it's non-zero and not -ENOENT. Signed-off-by: Zhu Yanhai zhu.yan...@gmail.com --- fs/btrfs/inode.c |2 +- 1

Re: kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/inode.c:2642!

2010-09-09 Thread Zhu Yanhai
Hi, That's because btrfs_del_dir_entries_in_log() will return the real errno after Andi's commit, so btrfs_unlink_inode() has to check the return value more seriously. A patch for this has been sent out. Regards, Zhu Yanhai 2010/9/9 Itaru Kitayama kitay...@cl.bb4u.ne.jp: Hi Chris, The latest

Re: [RFC][PATCH] make file's timestamp more accurate

2010-09-09 Thread john stultz
On Tue, 2010-08-31 at 17:42 +0900, Satoru Takeuchi wrote: linux has supported nanosecond order file's timestamp since 2.5.48. However current file timestamp is got by current_fs_time() and is only updated once a tick. It can't say true nanosecond accuracy. In addition, gettimeofday() before a

2.6.35.4 fumble-spolision

2010-09-09 Thread Simon Kirby
Hello! We seem to have done something to our backup volumes while switching between 2.6.33.2 and 2.6.35.4 which is now causing this crash while booting either kernel and mounting one of the volumes. Crash from 3.6.35.4 plus Li Zefan's free-space-cache.c patches. extent-tree.c is untouched, but

Re: 2.6.35.4 fumble-spolision

2010-09-09 Thread Chris Mason
On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 05:17:03PM -0700, Simon Kirby wrote: Hello! We seem to have done something to our backup volumes while switching between 2.6.33.2 and 2.6.35.4 which is now causing this crash while booting either kernel and mounting one of the volumes. Crash from 3.6.35.4 plus Li