On Tue, 14 Feb 2012, Chris Mason wrote:
Ok, 3.2 shouldn't have done this. Was this an external drive? What
else do you have on the system?
Nothing special actually. Standard arch linux with virtualbox kernel modules.
It's a SSD if this should matter. Mounted with ssd,compress=lzo,noatime.
Hi Xin / Hugo,
I am referring to
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/btrfs-progs.git
has miss match parameter list for list_subvols
--
# cd btrfs-progs
# egrep list_subvols *
btrfs_cmds.c: ret = list_subvols(fd, print_parent, 0);
btrfs_cmds.c: ret = list_subv
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
>> (BTW: If you're ever reworking this patch set, I'd like to make an ad
>> hoc request for slightly different names for fs/btrfs/snappy.c and
>> lib/snappy.c)
>
>
> Why?
>
It's not a big deal, I just found it confusing at first to see
"snappy
>
> Are you sure about these figures ? the difference seems too large. It's
almost
> unbelievable.
>
> --
You should not,
Mark Ruijter found the same for LessFS (http://www.lessfs.com/wordpress/?
p=688) and there is also such finding into an Hadoop thread
(https://scribe.twitter.com/#!/otisg/
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 07:54:43PM +0100, Timo Nentwig wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2012, Chris Mason wrote:
>
> >As for how we got here, I think you said you were originally running
> >something older than 3.2 when these problems started, correct?
>
> Nope, I was already on 3.2.1 or 3.2.4. I re
Markus Lindberg writes:
>
>
> Are you sure about these figures ? the difference seems too large. It's almost
> unbelievable.
Yes, my benchmarks totally disagree with them. In my tests lz4 is
generally slower than snappy-c.
-Andi
--
a...@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only
--
To unsubsc
>
> Silesia corpus (avg of 10 runs), AMD bulldozer box, 12G ram, 1Ghz cpu:
>
> lz4 = 739860 us ( 286 MB/s) 195930 us (1081 MB/s) 211957760
-> 101630873 47.9%
> snappy 1.0.4 = 1050 ms ( 201 MB/s) 248 ms ( 853 MB/s) 211957760
-> 104739310 49.4%
> snappy-c = 9
(BTW: If you're ever reworking this patch set, I'd like to make an ad
hoc request for slightly different names for fs/btrfs/snappy.c and
lib/snappy.c)
Why?
When building a x86 kernel, I get the following errors:
CC [M] lib/snappy.o
lib/snappy.c: In function 'snappy_init_env':
lib/snappy
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012, Chris Mason wrote:
As for how we got here, I think you said you were originally running
something older than 3.2 when these problems started, correct?
Nope, I was already on 3.2.1 or 3.2.4. I restored a backup in the meantime
and already had to soft-reset the box:
# ls
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 06:37:16PM +0100, Timo Nentwig wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2012, Chris Mason wrote:
>
> >btrfs-debug-tree -b 9872289792 /dev/xxx
>
> # btrfs-debug-tree -b 9872289792 /dev/loop1
> leaf 9872289792 items 51 free space 0 generation 120351 owner 5
Ok, so this block is full of dire
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012, Chris Mason wrote:
btrfs-debug-tree -b 9872289792 /dev/xxx
# btrfs-debug-tree -b 9872289792 /dev/loop1
leaf 9872289792 items 51 free space 0 generation 120351 owner 5
fs uuid 9e9886fc-3e60-4c59-a246-727662769ee2
chunk uuid f7e4ac1e-f4d6-436b-9bda-8409311dcdb6
item
Hi,
Liu Bo wrote:
> Actually I have no idea how to deal with this properly :(
>
> Because btrfs supports multi-devices so that we have to set the
> filesystem logical range to [0, (u64)-1] to get things to work well,
> while other filesystems's logical range is [0, device's total_bytes].
>
> Wh
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 11:15:39AM -0500, Jérôme Poulin wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
> >
> > Just to be sure, could you please paste the output of
> > `btrfs-debug-tree -d ' somewhere ?
>
> Here it is: http://paste.pocoo.org/show/550900/
So I was correct, you hav
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
>
> Just to be sure, could you please paste the output of
> `btrfs-debug-tree -d ' somewhere ?
Here it is: http://paste.pocoo.org/show/550900/
I also had btrsck errors before and still have them with 3 new after
balance (I guess it duplicated
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 09:31:09PM -0500, Jérôme Poulin wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
> > This is a respin of restriper patch series which adds an initial
> > implementation of restriper (it's a clever name for relocation framework
> > that allows to do selective pro
As the title shows, we port btrfs online defragments QA test into xfstests.
v3:
- use xfstests wrappers.
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo
---
278 | 171 +++
278.out | 11
group |1 +
3 files changed, 183 insertions(+), 0 deletio
load_free_space_cache() has forgotten to free path.
Signed-off-by: Tsutomu Itoh
---
fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c |1 +
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c b/fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c
index 5802b147..b30242f 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/free-sp
17 matches
Mail list logo
