On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
> Excerpts from Christoph Hellwig's message of 2011-04-01 09:34:05 -0400:
>> I don't think it's a good idea to introduce any user visible operations
>> over subvolume boundaries. Currently we don't have any operations over
>> mount boundaries, wh
On 04/01/2011 09:49 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 14:42 +0800, liubo wrote:
>> While adding tracepoint for btrfs, I got a problem:
>>
>> btrfs uses some macros with "ULL" type, but tracepoint's macros,
>> __print_[flags,symbols](), only have "unsigned long", so on 32bit box
>> t
Hi.
Still waiting for this
http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org/msg08370.html
Sincerely,
Viacheslav Dobromyslov
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 8:01 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Martin Fahr wrote:
>> btrfsck: disk-io.c:741: open_ctree_fd: Assertion `!(!tree_root->node)'
>> failed.
>
>
Martin Fahr wrote:
> btrfsck: disk-io.c:741: open_ctree_fd: Assertion `!(!tree_root->node)' failed.
My fs is also broken this way, though for me it happened after
resizing the fs and then partition. I still need to go back to the
list thread and do some work on my image.
> The usual questions: I
Hi,
I have put a linux system on an external SSD recently, using btrfs for both
root (/) and /home. After a couple of hibernation cycles the system got stuck
and I had to reboot it ignoring the memory image on disk. Unfortunately, even a
normal reboot did not work anymore. The kernel complains
Hallo, Stephane,
Du meintest am 01.04.11:
>> balancing about 2 TByte needed about 20 hours.
> [...]
> I've got a balance running since Monday on a 9TB volume (3.5 of which
> are used, 3.2 allegedly free), showing no sign of finishing soon.
> Should I be worried?
> Using /proc/sys/vm/block_dump,
Hello all,
I've been trying to use btrfs with a very specific purpose during my MSc
thesis, and now I would very much appreciate any comments you may have on a
given issue.
Currently I'm trying to mask accesses to different snapshots by different
processes, while still using the same FS entry
On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 14:12 +0200, Helmut Hullen wrote:
> Hallo, Struan,
>
> Du meintest am 01.04.11:
>
> > 1) Is the balancing operation expected to take many hours (or days?)
> > on a filesystem such as this? Or are there known issues with the
> > algorithm that are yet to be addressed?
>
> Ma
Excerpts from Calvin Walton's message of 2011-04-01 13:56:51 -0400:
> On Thu, 2011-03-31 at 18:59 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 05:06:42PM -0400, Calvin Walton wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 17:19 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > Just found a big
On Thu, 2011-03-31 at 18:59 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 05:06:42PM -0400, Calvin Walton wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 17:19 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Just found a big bug in the free space caching stuff that will result in
> > > early ENOSPC. I
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 08:34:50PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > More interesting would be to bring the ioctls up to generic code
> > and have them backended by fallocate. I'm not sure they map without
> > looking deeper, but it's at least an idea.
> >
>
> I just did a cursory look and it se
Bernhard Schmidt birkenwald.de> writes:
>
> Hi,
>
> a recent Ubuntu upgrade killed my system. Luckily I had done a btrfs
> snapshot before, so I set the particular subvolume as default using
>
> # btrfs subvolume set-default 261 /mnt
>
> from a rescue system and was back up in no time. I then
I noticed a huge problem with the free space cache that was presenting as an
early ENOSPC. Turns out when writing the free space cache out I forgot to take
into account pinned extents and more importantly clusters. This would result in
us leaking free space everytime we unmounted the filesystem a
On 1/4/2011 4:37 μμ, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 04:22:39PM +0300, Konstantinos Skarlatos wrote:
On 1/4/2011 3:12 μμ, Helmut Hullen wrote:
Du meintest am 01.04.11:
"dmesg" counts down the number of remaining "jobs".
are you sure? here is a snippet of dmesg from a balance i did
y
On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 03:36:00PM +0200, Helmut Hullen wrote:
> Hallo, Konstantinos,
>
> Du meintest am 01.04.11:
>
> >> "dmesg" counts down the number of remaining "jobs".
>
> > are you sure? here is a snippet of dmesg from a balance i did
> > yesterday (2.6.38.1)
>
> > btrfs: relocating bloc
On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 14:42 +0800, liubo wrote:
> While adding tracepoint for btrfs, I got a problem:
>
> btrfs uses some macros with "ULL" type, but tracepoint's macros,
> __print_[flags,symbols](), only have "unsigned long", so on 32bit box
> there will be 64->32 truncate WARNINGs when compiling
Excerpts from Christoph Hellwig's message of 2011-04-01 09:34:05 -0400:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 08:02:22AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> > Excerpts from Christoph Hellwig's message of 2011-03-31 02:36:36 -0400:
> > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 12:00:11AM -0400, Larry D'Anna wrote:
> > > > This is a si
Hallo, Konstantinos,
Du meintest am 01.04.11:
>> "dmesg" counts down the number of remaining "jobs".
> are you sure? here is a snippet of dmesg from a balance i did
> yesterday (2.6.38.1)
> btrfs: relocating block group 15338569728 flags 9
> btrfs: found 17296 extents
> btrfs: found 17296 exten
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 08:02:22AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> Excerpts from Christoph Hellwig's message of 2011-03-31 02:36:36 -0400:
> > On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 12:00:11AM -0400, Larry D'Anna wrote:
> > > This is a simple patch to allow reflinks to be made crossing subvolume
> > > boundaries.
> >
On 1/4/2011 1:59 πμ, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 05:06:42PM -0400, Calvin Walton wrote:
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 17:19 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
Hello,
Just found a big bug in the free space caching stuff that will result in
early ENOSPC. I'm working on fixing this bug, but it won
On 1/4/2011 3:12 μμ, Helmut Hullen wrote:
Hallo, Struan,
Du meintest am 01.04.11:
1) Is the balancing operation expected to take many hours (or days?)
on a filesystem such as this? Or are there known issues with the
algorithm that are yet to be addressed?
May be. Balancing about 15 GByte need
On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 03:56:33PM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
> > + spin_lock(&block_group->tree_lock);
> > + if (btrfs_block_group_free_space(block_group) !=
>
> This function call can be replaced by block_group->free_space, so
> we don't have to iterate the tree.
>
> (This function gets removed
Hallo, Struan,
Du meintest am 01.04.11:
> 1) Is the balancing operation expected to take many hours (or days?)
> on a filesystem such as this? Or are there known issues with the
> algorithm that are yet to be addressed?
May be. Balancing about 15 GByte needed about 2 hours (or less),
balancing
On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 12:14:50PM +0100, Struan Bartlett wrote:
> My company is testing btrfs (kernel 2.6.38) on a slave MySQL
> database server with a 195Gb filesystem (of which about 123Gb is
> used). So far, we're quite impressed with the performance. Our
> database loads are high, and if file
Hi,
My company is testing btrfs (kernel 2.6.38) on a slave MySQL database
server with a 195Gb filesystem (of which about 123Gb is used). So far,
we're quite impressed with the performance. Our database loads are high,
and if filesystem performance wasn't good, MySQL replication wouldn't
be
> + spin_lock(&block_group->tree_lock);
> + if (btrfs_block_group_free_space(block_group) !=
This function call can be replaced by block_group->free_space, so
we don't have to iterate the tree.
(This function gets removed in my patchset for inode number caching)
> + (block_group-
26 matches
Mail list logo
