Re: BTRFS constantly reports "No space left on device" even with a huge unallocated space

On 2016-09-01 13:12, Jeff Mahoney wrote: On 9/1/16 1:04 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2016-09-01 12:34, Ronan Arraes Jardim Chagas wrote: Em Qui, 2016-09-01 às 09:21 -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn escreveu: Yes, you can just run `btrfs quota disable /` and it should work. This ironically

Re: BTRFS constantly reports "No space left on device" even with a huge unallocated space

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Jeff Mahoney wrote: > On 9/1/16 1:04 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: >> On 2016-09-01 12:34, Ronan Arraes Jardim Chagas wrote: >>> Em Qui, 2016-09-01 às 09:21 -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn escreveu: Yes, you can just run `btrfs quota disable /`

Re: BTRFS constantly reports "No space left on device" even with a huge unallocated space

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 7:21 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > Yes, you can just run `btrfs quota disable /` and it should work. This > ironically reiterates that one of the bigger problems with BTRFS is that > distros are enabling unstable and known broken features by

Re: BTRFS constantly reports "No space left on device" even with a huge unallocated space

Hi Jeff, Em Qui, 2016-09-01 às 13:43 -0400, Jeff Mahoney escreveu: > Absolutely.  It doesn't affect the ability to take, retain, or > recover > using snapshots.  It only affects the ability to see how much space a > particular snapshot is using on disk, both from the user wanting to > know > and

Re: BTRFS constantly reports "No space left on device" even with a huge unallocated space

On 9/1/16 1:39 PM, Ronan Arraes Jardim Chagas wrote: > Hi Jeff, > > Em Qui, 2016-09-01 às 13:12 -0400, Jeff Mahoney escreveu: >> It's not. We use qgroups because that's the only way we can track >> how >> much space each subvolume is using, regardless of whether anyone >> wants >> to do

Re:

Am Wed, 31 Aug 2016 23:10:13 -0400 schrieb Jeff Mahoney : > On 8/31/16 10:02 PM, Fennec Fox wrote: > > Linux Titanium 4.7.2-1-MANJARO #1 SMP PREEMPT Sun Aug 21 15:04:37 > > UTC 2016 x86_64 GNU/Linux > > btrfs-progs v4.7 > > > > Data, single: total=30.01GiB, used=18.95GiB > >

[OT] Re: Balancing subvolume on a specific device

Am Sat, 20 Aug 2016 06:30:11 + (UTC) schrieb Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net>: > There's at least three other options to try to get what you mention, > however. FWIW, I'm a gentooer and thus build everything from sources > here, and use ccache myself. What I do is put all my build stuff, >

Re: btrfs-progs 4.7, check reports many "incorrect local backref count" messages

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: > OK so I have a 2nd volume, which is only ever used to 'btrfs receive' > from the 1st volume. The 2nd volume is never persistently mounted. But > it too has bunches of these incorrect backref messages, where >

Re: btrfstune settings

Hi, On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 05:42:39AM +0200, Oliver Freyermuth wrote: > I hope this is the correct place to ask, the wiki and manpages did not > help me on these questions. > > BTRFS has gained extended inode refs, skinny metadata and no-holes > quite a while ago and these are now the defaults

Re: BTRFS constantly reports "No space left on device" even with a huge unallocated space

Hi Jeff, Em Qui, 2016-09-01 às 13:12 -0400, Jeff Mahoney escreveu: > It's not.  We use qgroups because that's the only way we can track > how > much space each subvolume is using, regardless of whether anyone > wants > to do enforcement.  When it's working properly, snapper can make use > of >

Re: BTRFS constantly reports "No space left on device" even with a huge unallocated space

On 2016-09-01 12:34, Ronan Arraes Jardim Chagas wrote: Em Qui, 2016-09-01 às 09:21 -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn escreveu: Yes, you can just run `btrfs quota disable /` and it should work. This ironically reiterates that one of the bigger problems with BTRFS is that distros are enabling unstable

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: do not decrease bytes_may_use when replaying extents

On 09/01/2016 11:36 AM, David Sterba wrote: CC Josef. It's a followup of patch that went to 4.8-rc4 so we'd better get it to 4.8. On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:33:14AM +0800, Wang Xiaoguang wrote: When replaying extents, there is no need to update bytes_may_use in

Re: your mail

> -Original Message- > From: linux-btrfs-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-btrfs- > ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Austin S. Hemmelgarn > Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 6:18 AM > To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: your mail > > On 2016-09-01 03:44, M G Berberich

Re: btrfs-progs 4.7, check reports many "incorrect local backref count" messages

OK so I have a 2nd volume, which is only ever used to 'btrfs receive' from the 1st volume. The 2nd volume is never persistently mounted. But it too has bunches of these incorrect backref messages, where btrfs-progs 4.6.1 comes up clean. A 3rd volume, is only ever used to receive rsync from the 1st

Re: BTRFS constantly reports "No space left on device" even with a huge unallocated space

On 9/1/16 1:04 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > On 2016-09-01 12:34, Ronan Arraes Jardim Chagas wrote: >> Em Qui, 2016-09-01 às 09:21 -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn escreveu: >>> Yes, you can just run `btrfs quota disable /` and it should >>> work. This >>> ironically reiterates that one of the

Re: your mail

Am Donnerstag, den 01. September schrieb Austin S. Hemmelgarn: > On 2016-09-01 03:44, M G Berberich wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, den 31. August schrieb Fennec Fox: > > > Linux Titanium 4.7.2-1-MANJARO #1 SMP PREEMPT Sun Aug 21 15:04:37 UTC > > > 2016 x86_64 GNU/Linux > > > btrfs-progs v4.7 > > > > > >

RE: btrfs-progs 4.7, check reports many "incorrect local backref count" messages

> -Original Message- > From: linux-btrfs-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-btrfs- > ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Chris Murphy > Sent: Thursday, 1 September 2016 7:59 AM > To: Btrfs BTRFS > Subject: Re: btrfs-progs 4.7, check reports many "incorrect

Re: your mail

Am Mittwoch, den 31. August schrieb Fennec Fox: > Linux Titanium 4.7.2-1-MANJARO #1 SMP PREEMPT Sun Aug 21 15:04:37 UTC > 2016 x86_64 GNU/Linux > btrfs-progs v4.7 > > Data, single: total=30.01GiB, used=18.95GiB > System, single: total=4.00MiB, used=16.00KiB > Metadata, single: total=1.01GiB,

Re: [lkp] [btrfs] 18513091af: WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 14091 at fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:10008 btrfs_free_block_groups+0x29b/0x420 [btrfs]

Hi, Thanks for your report. I've sent a patch to btrfs community to fix this issue, currently it's not merged. Regards, Xiaoguang Wang On 09/01/2016 04:32 PM, kernel test robot wrote: FYI, we noticed the following commit: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git

Re: Recommendation on raid5 drive error resolution

On 2016-08-31 19:04, Gareth Pye wrote: ro,degraded has mounted it nicely and my rsync of the more useful data is progressing at the speed of WiFi. There are repeated read errors from one drive still but the rsync hasn't bailed yet, which I think means there isn't any overlapping errors in any

Re: your mail

On 2016-09-01 03:44, M G Berberich wrote: Am Mittwoch, den 31. August schrieb Fennec Fox: Linux Titanium 4.7.2-1-MANJARO #1 SMP PREEMPT Sun Aug 21 15:04:37 UTC 2016 x86_64 GNU/Linux btrfs-progs v4.7 Data, single: total=30.01GiB, used=18.95GiB System, single: total=4.00MiB, used=16.00KiB

Re: btrfs-progs 4.7, check reports many "incorrect local backref count" messages

OK I filed a bug: progs 4.7.x, numerous incorrect backrefs are not fixed with --repair https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=155791 -- 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: btrfs-progs 4.7, check reports many "incorrect local backref count" messages

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 5:51 PM, Paul Jones wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: ch...@colorremedies.com [mailto:ch...@colorremedies.com] On >> >> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 12:51 AM, Paul Jones wrote: >> >> -Original Message- >> >> From:

Re: BTRFS constantly reports "No space left on device" even with a huge unallocated space

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > 2. Snapper's default snapshot creation configuration is absolutely > pathological in nature, generating insane amounts of background resource > usage and taking up huge amounts of space. If this were changed,

Re: BTRFS constantly reports "No space left on device" even with a huge unallocated space

At 09/01/2016 05:44 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Ronan Arraes Jardim Chagas wrote: Hi guys! And the problem happened again. This time, I was only using Mozilla Firefox. I could get the very first message after the error. I hope it brings more

Re: btrfstune settings

Hi, Am 01.09.2016 um 19:14 schrieb David Sterba: > all your questions should be now answered and documentation cross > referenced among the relevant manual pages (will be synced to wiki at > release time: > > https://github.com/kdave/btrfs-progs/blob/devel/Documentation/mkfs.btrfs.asciidoc >

Re: your mail

On 9/1/16 12:44 PM, Kyle Gates wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: linux-btrfs-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-btrfs- >> ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Austin S. Hemmelgarn >> Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 6:18 AM >> To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org >> Subject: Re: your mail

[PATCH] btrfs: introduce tickets_id to determine whether asynchronous metadata reclaim work makes progress

In btrfs_async_reclaim_metadata_space(), we use ticket's address to determine whether asynchronous metadata reclaim work is making progress. ticket = list_first_entry(_info->tickets, struct reserve_ticket, list); if (last_ticket == ticket) {

[PATCH 2/2] btrfs-progs: Doc: Add warning for build RAID btrfs on partions from the same device

Quite a common sense for any RAID-like multi-device setup, just in case. Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo --- Documentation/mkfs.btrfs.asciidoc | 4 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) diff --git a/Documentation/mkfs.btrfs.asciidoc b/Documentation/mkfs.btrfs.asciidoc index

[PATCH 1/2] btrfs-progs: mkfs: Warn user for minimal RAID5/6 devices setup

For RAID5, 2 devices setup is just RAID1 with more overhead. For RAID6, 3 devices setup is RAID1 with 3 copies, not what most user want. So warn user at mkfs time for such case, and add explain in man pages. Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo ---

Re: [PATCH 1/2] btrfs-progs: mkfs: Warn user for minimal RAID5/6 devices setup

Is it worthwhile adding a note that RAID5 / RAID6 may very well eat your data at this stage? On 02/09/16 11:41, Qu Wenruo wrote: > For RAID5, 2 devices setup is just RAID1 with more overhead. > For RAID6, 3 devices setup is RAID1 with 3 copies, not what most user > want. > > So warn user at mkfs

RE: btrfs-progs 4.7, check reports many "incorrect local backref count" messages

> -Original Message- > From: ch...@colorremedies.com [mailto:ch...@colorremedies.com] On > > On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 12:51 AM, Paul Jones wrote: > >> -Original Message- > >> From: linux-btrfs-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-btrfs- > >>

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: remove pointless debugfs interface

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 04:38:16PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 8/31/16 2:08 PM, David Sterba wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 10:13:49AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > >> A /sys/kernel/debug/btrfs/test file was added nearly > >> two and a half years ago, but it serves no purpose; > > > > It

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: remove pointless debugfs interface

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 06:36:34PM -0400, Jeff Mahoney wrote: > On 8/31/16 3:08 PM, David Sterba wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 10:13:49AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > >> A /sys/kernel/debug/btrfs/test file was added nearly > >> two and a half years ago, but it serves no purpose; > > > > It

Re: [PATCH V2] btrfs: fix perms on demonstration debugfs interface

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 04:49:29PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > btrfs provides a helpful demonstration of how to export > a global variable via debugfs; however, it is unique among > other debugfs files in that it is world-writable, which causes > some concern to people who are not familiar with

Re: BTRFS constantly reports "No space left on device" even with a huge unallocated space

Hi! Em Qua, 2016-08-31 às 17:09 -0600, Chris Murphy escreveu: > OK so Ronan, I'm gonna guess the simplest work around for your > problem > is to disable quota support, and see if the problem happens again. > Look at the output of the command proposed by Jeff: btrfs qgroup show / qgroupid   

Re: BTRFS constantly reports "No space left on device" even with a huge unallocated space

On 2016-09-01 08:57, Ronan Arraes Jardim Chagas wrote: Hi! Em Qua, 2016-08-31 às 17:09 -0600, Chris Murphy escreveu: OK so Ronan, I'm gonna guess the simplest work around for your problem is to disable quota support, and see if the problem happens again. Look at the output of the command

[PATCH] btrfs: create example debugfs file only in debugging build

Signed-off-by: David Sterba --- fs/btrfs/sysfs.c | 9 + 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/sysfs.c b/fs/btrfs/sysfs.c index 804bd1c42e47..31f09564e170 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/sysfs.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/sysfs.c @@ -836,9 +836,18 @@ static int

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: create example debugfs file only in debugging build

On 9/1/16 7:44 AM, David Sterba wrote: > Signed-off-by: David Sterba Reviewed-by: Eric Sandeen > --- > fs/btrfs/sysfs.c | 9 + > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/sysfs.c b/fs/btrfs/sysfs.c > index

Re: [PATCH v2] Btrfs: detect corruption when non-root leaf has zero item

On 8/23/16 6:22 PM, Liu Bo wrote: > Right now we treat leaf which has zero item as a valid one > because we could have an empty tree, that is, a root that is > also a leaf without any item, however, in the same case but > when the leaf is not a root, we can end up with hitting the > BUG_ON(1) in

Re: btrfs-progs 4.7, check reports many "incorrect local backref count" messages

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 12:51 AM, Paul Jones wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: linux-btrfs-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-btrfs- >> ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Chris Murphy >> Sent: Thursday, 1 September 2016 7:59 AM >> To: Btrfs BTRFS

Re: [PATCH] btrfsprogs: only install udev rules for udev >= 190

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 09:15:44PM -0400, Jeff Mahoney wrote: > Prior to udev v190, there was no btrfs builtin helper. Installing it on > systems with an older udev will cause problems. > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Mahoney Applied, thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: do not decrease bytes_may_use when replaying extents

CC Josef. It's a followup of patch that went to 4.8-rc4 so we'd better get it to 4.8. On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:33:14AM +0800, Wang Xiaoguang wrote: > When replaying extents, there is no need to update bytes_may_use > in btrfs_alloc_logged_file_extent(), otherwise it'll trigger a > WARN_ON about

Re: BTRFS constantly reports "No space left on device" even with a huge unallocated space

Em Qui, 2016-09-01 às 09:21 -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn escreveu: > Yes, you can just run `btrfs quota disable /` and it should > work.  This  > ironically reiterates that one of the bigger problems with BTRFS is > that  > distros are enabling unstable and known broken features by default > on  >

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: bail out if block group has different mixed flag

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 06:08:27PM -0700, Liu Bo wrote: > Currently we allow inconsistence about mixed flag > (BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_METADATA | BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DATA). > > We'd get ENOSPC if block group has mixed flag and btrfs doesn't. > If that happens, we have one space_info with mixed flag and

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: add dynamic debug support

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 11:55:33PM -0400, Jeff Mahoney wrote: > We can re-use the dynamic debugging descriptor to make use of the dynamic > debugging mechanism but still use our own printk interface. > > Defining the DEBUG macro works as it did before. When it's defined, > all of the messages