btrfs_free_fs_root has no error conditions and should return void.
Signed-off-by: Jeff Mahoney
---
fs/btrfs/disk-io.c |3 +--
fs/btrfs/disk-io.h |2 +-
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
--- a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
@@ -2733,7 +2733,7 @@ int write_ctr
add_excluded_extent has no error conditions and should return void.
Signed-off-by: Jeff Mahoney
---
fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 19 ++-
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
--- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
@@ -206,15 +206,14 @@ block_group_ca
btrfs_destroy_pending_snapshots has no error conditions and should
return void.
Signed-off-by: Jeff Mahoney
---
fs/btrfs/disk-io.c |6 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
--- a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
@@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ static void btrfs_destroy_order
run_scheduled_bios has no error conditions and should return void.
Its callers already ignore the error code anyway.
Signed-off-by: Jeff Mahoney
---
fs/btrfs/volumes.c |3 +--
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
--- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
@@ -127,7 +127,7
btrfs_insert_root is just a wrapper for btrfs_insert_item. Just return
the error directly.
Signed-off-by: Jeff Mahoney
---
fs/btrfs/root-tree.c |9 +++--
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/root-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/root-tree.c
index f409990..1fd93d6 10
Here's my current error handling patchset, against Chris's current
for-linus branch.
As before, it's almost all in preparation for actual error handling.
After a chat with Chris last week about some of the bits I thought
might be contentious, I went ahead with the next step and converted
struct ex
I've rebooted server and run backup to btrfs partition again. It seems
that problem is gone, high sys load does not occur now. So it is some
bug in btrfs... Before reboot server had 30 days uptime so its really
not much.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
t
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 04:25:30PM -0500, Phillip Susi wrote:
> There were extra spaces around some of the arguments in the man
> page for mkfs.
Please resend with Signed-off-by: tag, and it would be helpful to
prepend the subject with eg. btrfs-progs.
thanks,
david
--
To unsubscribe from this li
---
man/mkfs.btrfs.8.in |4
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/man/mkfs.btrfs.8.in b/man/mkfs.btrfs.8.in
index 542e6cf..25e817b 100644
--- a/man/mkfs.btrfs.8.in
+++ b/man/mkfs.btrfs.8.in
@@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ mkfs.btrfs \- create an btrfs filesystem
[ \fB\-M\fP\f
There were extra spaces around some of the arguments in the man
page for mkfs.
---
man/mkfs.btrfs.8.in | 19 ++-
1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/man/mkfs.btrfs.8.in b/man/mkfs.btrfs.8.in
index 432db1b..542e6cf 100644
--- a/man/mkfs.btrfs.8.in
+++
> dd that backup disk to another disk, so you have a backup of your
> backup, and work with that.
OK.
> You can also post the dmesg output you get when you mount the broken
> filesystem, and ask the experts if it might be worth to try experimental
> btrfs.fsck on it.
dmesg does not output anythi
Hallo, Jan,
Du meintest am 23.11.11:
>> One big problem of btrfs seems to be: you can't see on which
>> partition/ disk the defect sector (or something else) may be
> A recent kernel (3.2, still rc) will tell you the byte number when an
> error occurs, and also give the the opportunity to resolv
2011-11-23, 09:08(-08), Blair Zajac:
>
> On Nov 23, 2011, at 9:04 AM, Stephane CHAZELAS wrote:
>
>> Hiya,
>>
>> is there any recommendation out there to setup a btrfs FS on top
>> of hardware or software raid5 or raid6 wrt stripe/stride alignment?
>
> Isn't the advantage of having btrfs do all the
On 23.11.2011 18:32, Helmut Hullen wrote:
> One big problem of btrfs seems to be: you can't see on which partition/
> disk the defect sector (or something else) may be
A recent kernel (3.2, still rc) will tell you the byte number when an
error occurs, and also give the the opportunity to resolve
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 6:33 AM, Hugo Mills wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 01:24:57AM +0100, Amedee Van Gasse wrote:
>> On 02-06-11 01:20, Hugo Mills wrote:
>> > Unless the traffic gets too high-volume, or unless someone
>> >important objects, I'm going to suggest that bug reports should go t
Hallo, Blair,
Du meintest am 23.11.11:
>> I can't answer that, but I can tell you that fsck for btrfs right
>> now is almost useless. It can't fix anyting.
> Thank you, I've read that fsck doesn't fix anything. I was curious
> if doing the scrub would resolve it.
I had tried ... about 4 Tbyte
On Nov 23, 2011, at 9:04 AM, Stephane CHAZELAS wrote:
> Hiya,
>
> is there any recommendation out there to setup a btrfs FS on top
> of hardware or software raid5 or raid6 wrt stripe/stride alignment?
Isn't the advantage of having btrfs do all the raiding itself so one gets the
checksums? If
Hiya,
is there any recommendation out there to setup a btrfs FS on top
of hardware or software raid5 or raid6 wrt stripe/stride alignment?
>From mkfs.btrfs, it doesn't look like there's much that can be
adjusted that would help, and what I'm asking might not even
make sense for btrfs but I though
On 11/23/2011 9:43 AM, krz...@gmail.com wrote:
What all those btrfs benchmark does not tell you that its performance
decreases (sys load increases) with growing size of btree. Creating
btrfs filesystem is instantaneous because initial tree is just
nothing...
While something is clearly wrong, th
On Nov 22, 2011, at 10:02 PM, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Blair Zajac wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm trying btrfs in a VirtualBox VM running Ubuntu 11.10 with kernel 3.0.0.
>> Running fsck I get a message with "err is 1".
>
>> Does this mean there's an error? Is
Hiya,
yes, you'll probably think that is crazy, but after observing
better performance with btrfs in some work loads on md RAID5
than btrfs builtin RAID10, I thought I'd try btrfs on zfs
(in-kernel, not fuse) zvol (on raidz) just for a laugh.
While this procedure worked for ext4 and xfs, for btrf
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 03:26:17PM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c b/fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c
> index 8c32434..89cc54e 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c
> +static int trim_no_bitmap(struct btrfs_block_group_cache *blo
I see that this high sys load and loadavg did not appear gradualy. It
appeared first time about 7 days ago and were present every backup,
every night since then.
During backup top shows higher cpu load on
4216 root 20 0 000 R 20.3 0.0 284:25.83 btrfs-delayed-m
4222 root
Yes, yesterday I've umouted partition and re-mounted it. Nothing has
changed this night.
You can look at my load graphs here:
http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/4661/33737291.png
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/2742/46527625.png
On the second one blue is SYS load. I bet you can reasily spot time
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 15:43:14 +0100
"krz...@gmail.com " wrote:
> I've been using btrfs for two months now. Every day between 02:00 and
> 08:00 I rsync some 300GB data (milions of files) to btrfs device and
> then make snapshot. Next day i rsync again 300GG little changed (rsync
> "in place"). Firs
I've been using btrfs for two months now. Every day between 02:00 and
08:00 I rsync some 300GB data (milions of files) to btrfs device and
then make snapshot. Next day i rsync again 300GG little changed (rsync
"in place"). First days it worked perfectly. Then loadavg (sys load)
started to rise. Now
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 08:12:43PM -0500, Phillip Susi wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 11/18/2011 10:50 AM, Phillip Susi wrote:
> > This is a nice little tool. The one suggestion that I have is that
> > it display the actual chunks and where they are located. It s
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 01:24:57AM +0100, Amedee Van Gasse wrote:
> On 02-06-11 01:20, Hugo Mills wrote:
> >Unless the traffic gets too high-volume, or unless someone
> >important objects, I'm going to suggest that bug reports should go to
> >this list for now (cc'd me, if you like). Note that
810d4rk wrote (ao):
> Hi to all, I have a hard drive encrypted using the gnome disk utility
> and it is formated with with btrfs and GUID, the problem started when
> moving a 4gb file to other disk it stooped saying input output error I
> think, then when I tried to access it I entered the password
Hi to all, I have a hard drive encrypted using the gnome disk utility
and it is formated with with btrfs and GUID, the problem started when
moving a 4gb file to other disk it stooped saying input output error I
think, then when I tried to access it I entered the password to
decrypt and it now says
101 - 130 of 130 matches
Mail list logo
