Re: strange btrfs sub list output

2011-06-02 Thread C Anthony Risinger
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 2:32 PM, C Anthony Risinger anth...@xtfx.me wrote: On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Andreas Philipp philipp.andr...@gmail.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 31.05.2011 19:40, C Anthony Risinger wrote: On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 5:00 AM,

Re: Announcing btrfs-gui

2011-06-02 Thread Fajar A. Nugraha
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:20 AM, Hugo Mills h...@carfax.org.uk wrote:   Over the last few weeks, I've been playing with a foolish idea, mostly triggered by a cluster of people being confused by btrfs's free space reporting (df vs btrfs fi df vs btrfs fi show). I also wanted an excuse, and some

Re: Announcing btrfs-gui

2011-06-02 Thread Hugo Mills
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 03:31:16PM +0700, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote: On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:20 AM, Hugo Mills h...@carfax.org.uk wrote:   Over the last few weeks, I've been playing with a foolish idea, mostly triggered by a cluster of people being confused by btrfs's free space reporting (df

filesystem seeding ... BUGs on .38, .39, loopback, real devices, tmp branch ... everything

2011-06-02 Thread C Anthony Risinger
hello, i'm trying to setup a seeded FS -- was only able to find this: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/10529 ... and announcement-like info from 2009 or so. i keep hitting bugs/oops, and even though the FS *appears* to work correctly afterwards, sometimes mount/strace/etc

Re: filesystem seeding ... BUGs on .38, .39, loopback, real devices, tmp branch ... everything

2011-06-02 Thread Geoff Ritter
On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 04:20 -0500, C Anthony Risinger wrote: i tried with loop devices at first, then real devices -- this is all under KVM/QEMU, and with FSs that are/will be smaller than 1G. I have tried the seed option as well. I was able to successfully mount the read write partition

[PATCH v6 11/20] evm: add evm_inode_post_init call in btrfs

2011-06-02 Thread Mimi Zohar
After creating the initial LSM security extended attribute, call evm_inode_post_init_security() to create the 'security.evm' extended attribute. Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar zo...@us.ibm.com --- fs/btrfs/xattr.c | 39 +-- 1 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 10

[PATCH][RESEND] btrfs: separate superblock items out of fs_info

2011-06-02 Thread David Sterba
fs_info is now ~9kb, more than fits into one page. This will cause mount failure when memory is too fragmented. Top space consumers are super block structures super_copy and super_for_commit, ~2.8kb each. Allocate them dynamically. fs_info will be ~3.5kb. (measured on x86_64) Add a wrapper for

Re: filesystem seeding ... BUGs on .38, .39, loopback, real devices, tmp branch ... everything

2011-06-02 Thread C Anthony Risinger
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:40 AM, Geoff Ritter geoff.rit...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 04:20 -0500, C Anthony Risinger wrote: i tried with loop devices at first, then real devices -- this is all under KVM/QEMU, and with FSs that are/will be smaller than 1G. I have tried the seed

Re: Having parent transid verify failed

2011-06-02 Thread Johannes Hirte
On Thursday 05 May 2011 22:32:42 Chris Mason wrote: Excerpts from Konstantinos Skarlatos's message of 2011-05-05 16:27:54 -0400: I think i made some progress. When i tried to remove the directory that i suspect contains the problematic file, i got this on the console rm -rf serverloft/

Re: [PATCH][RESEND] btrfs: separate superblock items out of fs_info

2011-06-02 Thread Sergei Trofimovich
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 18:13:22 +0200 David Sterba dste...@suse.cz wrote: fs_info is now ~9kb, more than fits into one page. This will cause mount failure when memory is too fragmented. Top space consumers are super block structures super_copy and super_for_commit, ~2.8kb each. Allocate them

Re: [BUG 3.0-rc1] oops during file removal, severe lock contention

2011-06-02 Thread Andi Kleen
Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com writes: Also, there is massive lock contention while running these workloads. perf top shows this for the create after about 5m inodes have been created: We saw pretty much the same thing in some simple tests on large systems (extent io tree locking and higher

btrfs w/ckd

2011-06-02 Thread kathleen.hodge
Hello, I'm trying to use mod3 ckds which are already RAID10 protection. (most of the doc I'm looking at uses fba instead of ckd, so I didn't know if this was a limitation) I'm addressing the head device and able to use these devices with no problem as ext3. I've been reading that cache may

Re: btrfs w/ckd

2011-06-02 Thread Hugo Mills
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 03:45:07PM -0400, kathleen.ho...@emc.com wrote: Hello, I'm trying to use mod3 ckds which are already RAID10 protection. (most of the doc I'm looking at uses fba instead of ckd, so I didn't know if this was a limitation) I'm addressing the head device and able to use

Re: [PATCH 0/9] some fixes for bugs spotted by valgrind

2011-06-02 Thread Sergei Trofimovich
On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 13:17:55 -0700 Andi Kleen a...@firstfloor.org wrote: Sergei Trofimovich sly...@gentoo.org writes: Am I too paranoid about the issue? It sounds weird, because if the kernel would really checksum mutexes on disk you would have a lot of on disk format incompatibility