Re: [RFC] Preliminary BTRFS Encryption

Thanks for comments. Pls see inline as below. On 09/15/2016 07:37 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2016-09-13 09:39, Anand Jain wrote: This patchset adds btrfs encryption support. The main objective of this series is to have bugs fixed and stability. I have verified with fstests to

Re: mkfs+mount failure of small fs on ppc64

On 9/13/16 4:44 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > on ppc64, 4.7-rc kernel, git btrfs-progs, v4.7.2: > > # truncate --size=500m testfile > # ./mkfs.btrfs testfile > # mkdir -p mnt > # mount -o loop testfile mnt Same failure on aarch64 if that makes it any more interesting. ;) # mount -o loop testfile

unable to handle kernel paging request

Hi, Bumped into the following one today; kernel 4.4.0-36-generic Ubuntu 16.4.1; CPU went to 100% and only a hard restart solved the issue. Since then everything's back to normal. Please let me know how can I help get to the bottom of this? [239049.350514] BUG: unable to handle kernel paging

Re: multi-device btrfs with single data mode and disk failure

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 1:44 AM, Alexandre Poux wrote: > I had a btrfs partition on a 6 disk array without raid (metadata in > raid10, but data in single), and one of the disks just died. > > So I lost some of my data, ok, I knew that. > > But two question : > > * > > Is

Thoughts on btrfs RAID-1 for cold storage/archive?

I'm investigating using btrfs for archiving old data and offsite storage, essentially put 2 drives in btrfs RAID-1, copy the data to the filesystem and then unmount, remove a drive and take it to an offsite location. Remount the other drive -o ro,degraded until my systems slots fill up, then

Size of scrubbed Data

Hello I have encountered a very strange phenomenon while using btrfs-scrub. I believe it may be a result of replacing my old installation of Debian Jessie with Debian Stretch, resulting in a Kernel Switch from 3.16+63 to 4.6.0-1. I scrub my filesystem once a month and let anacron send me the

Re: unable to handle kernel paging request

On 09/15/2016 10:08 AM, Mark Gavalda wrote: Hi, Bumped into the following one today; kernel 4.4.0-36-generic Ubuntu 16.4.1; CPU went to 100% and only a hard restart solved the issue. Since then everything's back to normal. Please let me know how can I help get to the bottom of this? I saw

Re: [RFC] Preliminary BTRFS Encryption

Thanks for the comments. Pls see inline below.. On 09/15/2016 01:38 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 7:39 AM, Anand Jain wrote: This patchset adds btrfs encryption support. The main objective of this series is to have bugs fixed and stability. I have

Re: [RFC] Preliminary BTRFS Encryption

On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 19:33:48 +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > Thanks for commenting. pls see inline below. > > On 09/15/2016 12:53 PM, Alex Elsayed wrote: >> On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 21:39:46 +0800, Anand Jain wrote: >> >>> This patchset adds btrfs encryption support. >>> >>> The main objective of this

Re: multi-device btrfs with single data mode and disk failure

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Alexandre Poux wrote: > Thank you very much for your answers > > Le 15/09/2016 à 17:38, Chris Murphy a écrit : >> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 1:44 AM, Alexandre Poux wrote: >>> Is it possible to do some king of a "btrfs

Re: multi-device btrfs with single data mode and disk failure

Thank you very much for your answers Le 15/09/2016 à 17:38, Chris Murphy a écrit : > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 1:44 AM, Alexandre Poux wrote: >> Is it possible to do some king of a "btrfs delete missing" on this >> kind of setup, in order to recover access in rw to my

Re: stability matrix

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 5:54 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > > > I specifically do not think we should worry about distro kernels though. It will be essentially impossible to keep such a thing up to date. It's difficult in the best case scenario to even track upstream's

Re: stability matrix

Am Donnerstag, 15. September 2016, 07:54:26 CEST schrieb Austin S. Hemmelgarn: > On 2016-09-15 05:49, Hans van Kranenburg wrote: > > On 09/15/2016 04:14 AM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: […] > I specifically do not think we should worry about distro kernels though. > If someone is using a

Re: [RFC] Preliminary BTRFS Encryption

On 2016-09-15 10:06, Anand Jain wrote: Thanks for comments. Pls see inline as below. On 09/15/2016 07:37 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2016-09-13 09:39, Anand Jain wrote: This patchset adds btrfs encryption support. The main objective of this series is to have bugs fixed and

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 5:35 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > On 2016-09-12 16:08, Chris Murphy wrote: >> >> - btrfsck status >> e.g. btrfs-progs 4.7.2 still warns against using --repair, and lists >> it under dangerous options also; while that's true, Btrfs can't be >>

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > 2. We're developing new features without making sure that check can fix > issues in any associated metadata. Part of merging a new feature needs to > be proving that fsck can handle fixing any issues in the

[PATCH] btrfs-progs: subvolume verbose delete flag

There was already the logic for verbose output, but the flag parsing did not include it. Signed-off-by: Vincent Batts --- cmds-subvolume.c | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/cmds-subvolume.c b/cmds-subvolume.c index e7ef67d..f8c9f48

[PATCH] Expose verbose flag on subvolume delete

Exposing the verbose flag that already had the logic for verbose output Vincent Batts (1): btrfs-progs: subvolume verbose delete flag cmds-subvolume.c | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) -- 2.9.0 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs"

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On 2016-09-15 14:01, Chris Murphy wrote: On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 5:35 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2016-09-12 16:08, Chris Murphy wrote: - btrfsck status e.g. btrfs-progs 4.7.2 still warns against using --repair, and lists it under dangerous options also; while

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: kill BUG_ON in do_relocation

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:19:04AM -0700, Liu Bo wrote: > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 01:31:31PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > > On 09/14/2016 01:29 PM, Chris Mason wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 09/14/2016 01:13 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: > > > > On 09/14/2016 12:27 PM, Liu Bo wrote: > > > > > While

[PATCH] Btrfs: handle quota reserve failure properly

btrfs/022 was spitting a warning for the case that we exceed the quota. If we fail to make our quota reservation we need to clean up our data space reservation. Thanks, Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik --- fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 9 +++-- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: kill BUG_ON in do_relocation

On 09/15/2016 03:01 PM, Liu Bo wrote: On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:19:04AM -0700, Liu Bo wrote: On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 01:31:31PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: On 09/14/2016 01:29 PM, Chris Mason wrote: On 09/14/2016 01:13 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: On 09/14/2016 12:27 PM, Liu Bo wrote: While

df -i shows 0 inodes 0 used 0 free on 4.4.0-36-generic Ubuntu 14 - Bug or not?

I don't expect accurate data on a btrfs file system when using df, but after upgrading to kernel 4.4.0 I get the following: $ df -i ... /dev/sdc3 0 0 0 - /home /dev/sdc4 0 0 0 - /vm0 ... Where /dev/sdc3 and /dev/sdc4 are btrfs

Re: unable to handle kernel paging request

Mark Gavalda posted on Thu, 15 Sep 2016 22:12:57 +0200 as excerpted: [Moved to bottom to retain quote/reply order.] > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Chris Mason wrote: >> On 09/15/2016 10:08 AM, Mark Gavalda wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Bumped into the following one today; kernel

Re: [RFC] Preliminary BTRFS Encryption

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 11:12:13 +1000 Dave Chinner wrote: > > As of now these patch set supports encryption on per subvolume, as > > managing properties on per subvolume is a kind of core to btrfs, which is > > easier for data center solution-ing, seamlessly persistent and easy

Re: [RFC] Preliminary BTRFS Encryption

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 09:39:46PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > > This patchset adds btrfs encryption support. > > The main objective of this series is to have bugs fixed and stability. > I have verified with fstests to confirm that there is no regression. > > A design write-up is coming next,

Re: Thoughts on btrfs RAID-1 for cold storage/archive?

E V posted on Thu, 15 Sep 2016 11:48:13 -0400 as excerpted: > I'm investigating using btrfs for archiving old data and offsite > storage, essentially put 2 drives in btrfs RAID-1, copy the data to the > filesystem and then unmount, remove a drive and take it to an offsite > location. Remount the

Re: df -i shows 0 inodes 0 used 0 free on 4.4.0-36-generic Ubuntu 14 - Bug or not?

GWB posted on Thu, 15 Sep 2016 18:58:24 -0500 as excerpted: > I don't expect accurate data on a btrfs file system when using df, but > after upgrading to kernel 4.4.0 I get the following: > > $ df -i ... > /dev/sdc3 0 0 0 - /home > /dev/sdc4 0

multi-device btrfs with single data mode and disk failure

I had a btrfs partition on a 6 disk array without raid (metadata in raid10, but data in single), and one of the disks just died. So I lost some of my data, ok, I knew that. But two question : * Is it possible to know (using metadata I suppose) what data I have lost ? * Is it

Re: Is stability a joke?

Am Donnerstag, 15. September 2016, 07:55:36 CEST schrieb Kai Krakow: > Am Mon, 12 Sep 2016 08:20:20 -0400 > > schrieb "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" : > > On 2016-09-11 09:02, Hugo Mills wrote: > > > On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 02:39:14PM +0200, Waxhead wrote: > > >> Martin Steigerwald

Re: 4.4.0 - no space left with >1.7 TB free space left

On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 16:53:32 +0500 Roman Mamedov wrote: > On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 20:36:26 +0900 > Tomasz Chmielewski wrote: > > > On 2016-02-08 20:24, Roman Mamedov wrote: > > > > >> Linux 4.4.0 - btrfs is mainly used to host lots of test containers, > > >>

Re: Is stability a joke?

Hello Nicholas. Am Mittwoch, 14. September 2016, 21:05:52 CEST schrieb Nicholas D Steeves: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 08:20:20AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > > On 2016-09-11 09:02, Hugo Mills wrote: […] > > As far as documentation though, we [BTRFS] really do need to get our act > >

Re: Is stability a joke?

Am Mon, 12 Sep 2016 08:20:20 -0400 schrieb "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" : > On 2016-09-11 09:02, Hugo Mills wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 02:39:14PM +0200, Waxhead wrote: > >> Martin Steigerwald wrote: > [...] > [...] > [...] > [...] > >> That is exactly the

Re: Size of scrubbed Data

Hi Stefan, 1st you should run an balance on system data to move the single data to raid1. imho. then do the scrub again. btw are there any scrubbing errors in dmesg? disks are ok?! any compression involved? changed freespacecache to v2? sash Am 15.09.2016 um 17:48 schrieb Stefan Malte

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Hugo Mills wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 01:02:43PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn >> wrote: >> >> > 2. We're developing new features without making sure that check

Re: multi-device btrfs with single data mode and disk failure

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Alexandre Poux wrote: > > Le 15/09/2016 à 18:54, Chris Murphy a écrit : >> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Alexandre Poux wrote: >>> Thank you very much for your answers >>> >>> Le 15/09/2016 à 17:38, Chris Murphy a écrit :

Re: Size of scrubbed Data

Hi sash How do I move the single system data to raid1? Dmesg doesnt show any scrubbing errors, according to Smart all the disks are okay. I am not using any any compression. How would I change freespacecache to v2 and what benefits would it entail? I think I need to add the following to my

Re: unable to handle kernel paging request

Thanks, I can see it included in 4.8-rc6 but not the other branches. Will it get pulled later or is this a 4.8 only fix? Mark On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Chris Mason wrote: > On 09/15/2016 10:08 AM, Mark Gavalda wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Bumped into the following one today;

Re: Size of scrubbed Data

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Stefan Malte Schumacher wrote: > > btrfs --version > btrfs-progs v4.7.1 Upgrade to 4.7.2 or downgrade to 4.6.1 before using btrfs check; see the changelog for details. I'm not recommending that you use btrfs check, just staying

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 01:02:43PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn > wrote: > > > 2. We're developing new features without making sure that check can fix > > issues in any associated metadata. Part of merging a new

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On Thu, 2016-09-15 at 14:20 -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > 3. Fsck should be needed only for un-mountable filesystems.  Ideally, > we  > should be handling things like Windows does.  Preform slightly > better  > checking when reading data, and if we see an error, flag the > filesystem  > for

Re: [RFC] Preliminary BTRFS Encryption

On 2016-09-13 09:39, Anand Jain wrote: This patchset adds btrfs encryption support. The main objective of this series is to have bugs fixed and stability. I have verified with fstests to confirm that there is no regression. A design write-up is coming next, however here below is the quick

[PATCH]btrfs-progs: Add fast,slow symlinks and fifo types to convert test

Signed-off-by: Lakshmipathi.G --- tests/common.convert | 18 +++--- 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/tests/common.convert b/tests/common.convert index 67c99b1..2790be5 100644 --- a/tests/common.convert +++

Re: stability matrix

On 09/15/2016 04:14 AM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > Hey. > > As for the stability matrix... > > In general: > - I think another column should be added, which tells when and for > which kernel version the feature-status of each row was > revised/updated the last time and especially by

Re: [RFC] Preliminary BTRFS Encryption

Thanks for commenting. pls see inline below. On 09/15/2016 12:53 PM, Alex Elsayed wrote: On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 21:39:46 +0800, Anand Jain wrote: This patchset adds btrfs encryption support. The main objective of this series is to have bugs fixed and stability. I have verified with fstests to

Re: stability matrix

On 2016-09-15 05:49, Hans van Kranenburg wrote: On 09/15/2016 04:14 AM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: Hey. As for the stability matrix... In general: - I think another column should be added, which tells when and for which kernel version the feature-status of each row was

[PATCH]btrfs-progs: btrfs-convert.c : check source file system state

Signed-off-by: Lakshmipathi.G --- btrfs-convert.c | 15 +++ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+) diff --git a/btrfs-convert.c b/btrfs-convert.c index c10dc17..27da9ce 100644 --- a/btrfs-convert.c +++ b/btrfs-convert.c @@ -2171,6 +2171,17 @@ static void