lxc-ls --fancy

am I going crazy or was the "--fancy" option introduced after btrfs-progs rev 3.19.1? And if so, what rev? Thanks -- 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

Re: [RFC] Experimental btrfs encryption

Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote on 2016/03/01 11:41 -0500: On 2016-03-01 11:08, Anand Jain wrote: This patchset adds btrfs encryption support. While I think this is a great feature to have, I personally think we're better off waiting for the ext4/F2FS encryption API's to get pushed up to the VFS

Re: [GIT PULL] Btrfs fixes for 4.6

On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 08:48:06AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > Chris Mason wrote on 2016/03/01 11:06 -0500: > >On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 10:20:26AM +0100, David Sterba wrote: > >>Hi Chris, > >> > >>On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 01:22:00PM +, fdman...@kernel.org wrote: > >>>The following changes

Re: [PATCH v3] Btrfs: fix fsync xattr loss in the fast fsync path

On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 12:44:51AM +0100, fdman...@kernel.org wrote: > From: Filipe Manana > > After commit 4f764e515361 ("Btrfs: remove deleted xattrs on fsync log > replay"), we can end up in a situation where during log replay we end up > deleting xattrs that were never

Re: [RFC] Experimental btrfs encryption

Anand Jain wrote on 2016/03/02 00:08 +0800: This patchset adds btrfs encryption support. Warning: The code is in prototype/experimental stage and is not suitable for the production data yet. Example usage: Create an encrypted subvolume: btrfs subvol create -e /btrfs/sv1 Paraphrase: <-

Re: RAID 6 full, but there is still space left on some devices

When I've been converting from RAID1 to RAID5 I've been getting stripes that only contain 1G regardless of how wide the stripe is. So when I've done a large convert I've had to limit the blocks and then do a balance of the target profile and repeat till finished. Has anyone else seen similar? On

Re: [GIT PULL] Btrfs fixes for 4.6

Chris Mason wrote on 2016/03/01 20:11 -0500: On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 08:48:06AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: Chris Mason wrote on 2016/03/01 11:06 -0500: On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 10:20:26AM +0100, David Sterba wrote: Hi Chris, On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 01:22:00PM +, fdman...@kernel.org

Re: [GIT PULL] Btrfs fixes for 4.6

On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 09:24:46AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > Chris Mason wrote on 2016/03/01 20:11 -0500: > >On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 08:48:06AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > >> > >> > >>Chris Mason wrote on 2016/03/01 11:06 -0500: > >>>On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 10:20:26AM +0100, David Sterba

Re: [GIT PULL] Btrfs fixes for 4.6

Chris Mason wrote on 2016/03/01 11:06 -0500: On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 10:20:26AM +0100, David Sterba wrote: Hi Chris, On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 01:22:00PM +, fdman...@kernel.org wrote: The following changes since commit 0fcb760afa6103419800674e22fb7f4de1f9670b: Merge branch 'for-next'

Re: [GIT PULL] Btrfs fixes for 4.6

Hi Chris, On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 01:22:00PM +, fdman...@kernel.org wrote: > The following changes since commit 0fcb760afa6103419800674e22fb7f4de1f9670b: > > Merge branch 'for-next' of > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kdave/linux into for-linus-4.6 > (2016-02-24 10:21:44

[PATCH] btrfs: Output more info for enospc_debug mount option

As one user in mail list report reproducible balance ENOSPC error, it's better to add more debug info for enospc_debug mount option. Reported-by: Marc Haber Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo --- fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 17 +++-- 1 file

Re: Again, no space left on device while rebalancing and recipe doesnt work

Qu Wenruo wrote on 2016/03/01 15:24 +0800: Marc Haber wrote on 2016/03/01 07:54 +0100: On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 08:45:21AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: Didn't see the attachment though, seems to be filtered by maillist police. Trying again. OK, I got the attachment. And, surprisingly, btrfs

Re: raid5

John Smith posted on Tue, 01 Mar 2016 15:24:04 +0100 as excerpted: > what is the status of btrfs raid5 in kernel 4.4? Thank you That is a very good question. =:^) The answer, to the best I can give it, is, btrfs raid56 mode has no known outstanding bugs specific to it at this time (unless a

Re: lxc-ls --fancy

Carlos Ortega posted on Tue, 01 Mar 2016 14:11:32 -0500 as excerpted: > am I going crazy or was the "--fancy" option introduced after > btrfs-progs rev 3.19.1? And if so, what rev? lxc-ls in btrfs-progs? Not in any btrfs-progs that I'm aware of. Maybe in some lxc-progs package or the like.

Re: Again, no space left on device while rebalancing and recipe doesnt work

Qu Wenruo posted on Tue, 01 Mar 2016 15:24:03 +0800 as excerpted: > > Marc Haber wrote on 2016/03/01 07:54 +0100: >> On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 08:45:21AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: >>> Didn't see the attachment though, seems to be filtered by maillist >>> police. >> >> Trying again. > > OK, I got

CISCO AND AVAYA IP Phones

Hi, Clean tested working pulls CPUs and QTYs in stock. 115 X X5650 65 X E5410 75 X X5660 145 X E5530 100 X E5645 40 X X5680 75 X X5690 Brand new sealed IP phones and QTYs in stock. 55 x CP-7937G 77 x CP-7942G 54 x CP-7945G 75 x CP-7962G .. 45 x Avaya 9630 65 x Avaya 9641 55 x Avaya 9640

Re: [RFC] Experimental btrfs encryption

On 03/02/2016 02:23 AM, Chris Mason wrote: On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 09:59:27AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 11:46:16AM -0500, Chris Mason wrote: We'll definitely move in line with the common API over time. Thanks Anand for starting this! I'd prefer that we keep

btrfs-progs: initial scan-build results

Hi, With btrfs-progs needing & getting some more love I decided to run today's master through clang's very awesome static analyzer [1] to see what a more complete data flow analysis than gcc's -Wall yields. The results can be found at [2] and are somewhat reason for concern. =:) Please note that

Re: [RFC] Experimental btrfs encryption

Thanks Austin for commenting. Yes to most of it. And probably I should have titled known-issues to known-bugs, which I meant to fix before final integration. In general: Its good to explore options of both compression+encryption OR an algorithm engine which can automatically do both

Re: [RFC] Experimental btrfs encryption

On 2016-03-01 11:46, Chris Mason wrote: On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 05:29:52PM +0100, Tomasz Torcz wrote: On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 12:08:09AM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: This patchset adds btrfs encryption support. Warning: The code is in prototype/experimental stage and is not suitable for the

Re: [RFC] Experimental btrfs encryption

On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 11:46:16AM -0500, Chris Mason wrote: > We'll definitely move in line with the common API over time. Thanks > Anand for starting this! > > I'd prefer that we keep it per-subvolume for now, just because > subvolumes are so cheap and because it seems like a better collection

Re: [RFC] Experimental btrfs encryption

On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 09:59:27AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 11:46:16AM -0500, Chris Mason wrote: > > We'll definitely move in line with the common API over time. Thanks > > Anand for starting this! > > > > I'd prefer that we keep it per-subvolume for now, just

Re: btrfs-progs: initial scan-build results

Hi, thanks for taking a look. I hadn't actually delved in too deeply yet. On 03/01/16 14:41, Alexander Fougner wrote: > All zero-sized allocations are false positives, except the > btrfs-image.c. This can be fixed by placing the num_threads at the top > instead of after calloc(). Well..I

[RFC] Experimental btrfs encryption

This patchset adds btrfs encryption support. Warning: The code is in prototype/experimental stage and is not suitable for the production data yet. Example usage: Create an encrypted subvolume: btrfs subvol create -e /btrfs/sv1 Paraphrase: <- Review encryption status btrfs subvol show

[RFC PATCH 2/2] btrfs-progs: Encryption: add encrypt sub cli

*** Warning: Experimental cli and codes *** This is the btrfs-progs part of btrfs encryption. The branch is based on btrfs-progs v4.4.1. Depends on keyctl-utils and libscrypt packages. Signed-off-by: Anand Jain --- Makefile.in | 5 +- btrfs-list.c | 33 +

[RFC PATCH 1/1] btrfs: Encryption: Add btrfs encryption support

*** *** Warning: Experimental code. *** Adds encryption support. The branch is based on v4.5-rc6. Signed-off-by: Anand Jain --- fs/btrfs/Makefile | 2 +- fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h | 2 + fs/btrfs/compression.c | 53 - fs/btrfs/compression.h | 1 +

Re: [GIT PULL] Btrfs fixes for 4.6

On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 10:20:26AM +0100, David Sterba wrote: > Hi Chris, > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 01:22:00PM +, fdman...@kernel.org wrote: > > The following changes since commit 0fcb760afa6103419800674e22fb7f4de1f9670b: > > > > Merge branch 'for-next' of > >

Re: btrfs raid

On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 11:19:34AM -0500, Carlos Ortega wrote: > I'd like to confirm that btrfs raid actually works. My filesystem > looks like it's a simple concatenation judging from its size in df -k > output. btrfs filesystem df says it's a raid10, I just don't > completely trust it. Also

Re: [RFC] Experimental btrfs encryption

On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 12:08:09AM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > This patchset adds btrfs encryption support. > > Warning: > The code is in prototype/experimental stage and is not suitable > for the production data yet. Can you share some design documents? Will it be compatible with existing

Re: btrfs-progs: initial scan-build results

On 03/01/16 16:45, Holger Hoffstätte wrote: > On 03/01/16 14:41, Alexander Fougner wrote: >> All zero-sized allocations are false positives, except the Right, I've now also reviewed them all and they are all guarded by other conditions or plain wrong - very likely because this particular warning

raid5

Hi, what is the status of btrfs raid5 in kernel 4.4? Thank you -- 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.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: btrfs-progs: initial scan-build results

2016-03-01 13:44 GMT+01:00 Holger Hoffstätte : > Hi, > > With btrfs-progs needing & getting some more love I decided to run today's > master through clang's very awesome static analyzer [1] to see what a more > complete data flow analysis than gcc's -Wall yields.

Re: RAID 6 full, but there is still space left on some devices

Hey all, Just wanted to follow up with this for anyone experiencing the same issue. First, I tried Qu's suggestion, of re-balancing to single, then re-balancing to RAID 6. I noticed when I completed the conversion to single, that a few drives didn't receive an identical amount of data. Balancing

[RFC PATCH 1/2] btrfs-progs: subvolume functions reorg

Make few subvol related functions usable outside of subvol command set. Signed-off-by: Anand Jain --- Makefile.in | 2 +- cmds-qgroup.c| 1 + cmds-send.c | 12 + cmds-subvolume.c | 102 +++-- subvolume.c | 152

btrfs raid

I'd like to confirm that btrfs raid actually works. My filesystem looks like it's a simple concatenation judging from its size in df -k output. btrfs filesystem df says it's a raid10, I just don't completely trust it. Also I'm stuck at version 3.19.1, I can't go higher. Can someone confirm

Re: [RFC] Experimental btrfs encryption

On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 05:29:52PM +0100, Tomasz Torcz wrote: > On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 12:08:09AM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > > This patchset adds btrfs encryption support. > > > > Warning: > > The code is in prototype/experimental stage and is not suitable > > for the production data yet. > >