Re: Strange prformance degradation when COW writes happen at fixed offsets

2012-02-27 Thread Christian Brunner
2012/2/24 Nik Markovic nmarkovi.nav...@gmail.com: To add... I also tried nodatasum (only) and nodatacow otions. I found somewhere that nodatacow doesn't really mean tthat COW is disabled. Test data is still the same - CPU spikes and times are the same. On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Nik

Re: LABEL only 1 device

2012-02-27 Thread Hugo Mills
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 07:44:00AM +0100, Helmut Hullen wrote: Hallo, Hugo, Du meintest am 26.02.12: mkfs.btrfs creates a new filesystem. The -L option sets the label for the newly-created FS. It *cannot* be used to change the label of an existing FS. The safest way may be

Re: btrfs-convert options

2012-02-27 Thread Hugo Mills
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 08:52:00AM +0100, Helmut Hullen wrote: Hallo, linux-btrfs, I want to change some TByte disks (at least one) from ext4 to btrfs. And I want -d raid0 -m raid1. Is it possible to tell btrfs-convert especially these options for data and metadata? Or have I to use

Re: btrfs-convert options

2012-02-27 Thread Helmut Hullen
Hallo, Hugo, Du meintest am 27.02.12: I want to change some TByte disks (at least one) from ext4 to btrfs. And I want -d raid0 -m raid1. Is it possible to tell btrfs-convert especially these options for data and metadata? Or have I to use mkfs.btrfs (and then copy the backup) when I want

Re: LABEL only 1 device

2012-02-27 Thread Helmut Hullen
Hallo, Hugo, Du meintest am 27.02.12: mkfs.btrfs creates a new filesystem. The -L option sets the label for the newly-created FS. It *cannot* be used to change the label of an existing FS. The safest way may be deleting this option ... it seems to work as expected only when I create

Re: LABEL only 1 device

2012-02-27 Thread David Sterba
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 04:44:00PM +, Hugo Mills wrote: OK, the real problem you're seeing is that when btrfs removes a device from the filesystem, that device is not modified in any way. This means that the old superblock is left behind on it, containing the FS label information. What

Re: LABEL only 1 device

2012-02-27 Thread Helmut Hullen
Hallo, David, Du meintest am 27.02.12: [deleting btrfs partition] OK, the real problem you're seeing is that when btrfs removes a device from the filesystem, that device is not modified in any way. This means that the old superblock is left behind on it, containing the FS label

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: hold enough space for global_rsv

2012-02-27 Thread Johannes Hirte
Am Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:51:59 +0800 schrieb Liu Bo liubo2...@cn.fujitsu.com: I've kept hitting enospc warnings of global_rsv while running defragment on files: btrfs: block rsv returned -28 WARNING: at fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:5984 btrfs_alloc_free_block+0x333/0x340 [btrfs]() ... I used a

Re: Set nodatacow per file?

2012-02-27 Thread dima
Hello, Since several people asked to post the results, here they are. I tried raw virtio disk with and without -z -C set and also qcow2 virtio disk without -z -C set and did not notice any difference in performance at all - Redhat 6.2 Minimal installs in 10 minutes in each case. The abysmal

Re: [BUG] Kernel Bug at fs/btrfs/volumes.c:3638

2012-02-27 Thread David Sterba
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 11:42:58PM -0500, Jérôme Carretero wrote: At some point, I would appreciate some kind of thorough evaluation using a fuzzer on small disk images. The btrfs developers could for instance: - provide a script to create a filesystem image with a known layout (known

Re: Errors in dmesg, no crashes though.

2012-02-27 Thread David Sterba
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 09:14:01AM +1030, Jordan Windsor wrote: I'm running Ubuntu under KVM, with btrfs on the host where the Qemu/KVM image is stored, the VM was also running at the time. I was going to check something unrelated in the dmesg output, as I did that I noticed some errors in it

Re: LABEL only 1 device

2012-02-27 Thread Duncan
Helmut Hullen posted on Mon, 27 Feb 2012 11:27:00 +0100 as excerpted: Du meintest am 27.02.12: mkfs.btrfs creates a new filesystem. The -L option sets the label for the newly-created FS. The safest way may be deleting this option ... it seems to work as expected only when I create a

Re: Errors in dmesg, no crashes though.

2012-02-27 Thread Nik Markovic
I've just seen this too on Fedora 16 while I was investigating an NFS issue. I was trying to copy a file from an NFS mount to a btrfs partition. The NFS transfers for large files were occurring in bursts for some reason and I was aborting the copy at times. This NFS problem was not related to

Re: LABEL only 1 device

2012-02-27 Thread Helmut Hullen
Hallo, Duncan, Du meintest am 27.02.12: I've said this several times: Your expectations are wrong. You don't label partitions. Yes - now I know. But I'm afraid other people also expect wrong - when I use mkfs.ext[234] then this option works (in another way than with mkfs.btrfs).

[RFC PATCH 21/22] btrfs: add support for read_iter, write_iter, and direct_IO_bvec

2012-02-27 Thread Dave Kleikamp
Some helpers were broken out of btrfs_direct_IO() in order to avoid code duplication in new bio_vec-based function. Signed-off-by: Dave Kleikamp dave.kleik...@oracle.com Cc: Zach Brown z...@zabbo.net Cc: Chris Mason chris.ma...@oracle.com Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org --- fs/btrfs/file.c |

Re: LABEL only 1 device

2012-02-27 Thread Hugo Mills
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 10:15:00PM +0100, Helmut Hullen wrote: Du meintest am 27.02.12: I've said this several times: Your expectations are wrong. You don't label partitions. Yes - now I know. But I'm afraid other people also expect wrong - when I use mkfs.ext[234] then this

Re: LABEL only 1 device

2012-02-27 Thread Felix Blanke
Hi Helmut, are you sure that 'mkfs.ext2/3/4 -L label /dev/xxx' doesn't create a new fs? Afaik to change a label of a given (ext2/3/4) filesystem you should use tune2fs. I don't have a linux system available right now but this is what I would expect and what would make a lot more sense

Re: LABEL only 1 device

2012-02-27 Thread Hugo Mills
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 10:15:00PM +0100, Helmut Hullen wrote: Du meintest am 27.02.12: I've said this several times: Your expectations are wrong. You don't label partitions. Yes - now I know. But I'm afraid other people also expect wrong - when I use mkfs.ext[234] then this

Re: LABEL only 1 device

2012-02-27 Thread Helmut Hullen
Hallo, Hugo, Du meintest am 27.02.12: But there's a small difference: mke2fs -L MyLabel /dev/sdn4 only sets/changes the label (ok - it tests the type of the partition and refuses labeling if the type doesn't fit). OK, I have just tried this out. It does set the filesystem

Re: Set nodatacow per file?

2012-02-27 Thread Chester
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 7:54 AM, dima dole...@parallels.com wrote: Hello, Since several people asked to post the results, here they are. I tried raw virtio disk with and without -z -C set and also qcow2 virtio disk without -z -C set and did not notice any difference in performance at all -

Re: SELinux inode size gotcha in btrfs.

2012-02-27 Thread Hugo Mills
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 10:18:55PM +, Alex wrote: I've come across the 'gotcha' in XFS where the inode size defaults to 256 [1] whereas for SELinux the attributes play better when you initialise it at creation to 512. A btrfs inode structure is 136 bytes in size. xattrs and any inline

Re: SELinux inode size gotcha in btrfs.

2012-02-27 Thread David Sterba
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 10:18:55PM +, Alex wrote: From my reading of the btrfs specs [2] it doesn't look like you'll get caught with that as the inodes will not contain embedded file data or extended attribute data. These things are stored in other item types. Have I read that right? I've

Re: Set nodatacow per file?

2012-02-27 Thread dima
On 02/28/2012 07:10 AM, Chester wrote: On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 7:54 AM, dimadole...@parallels.com wrote: Hello, Since several people asked to post the results, here they are. I tried raw virtio disk with and without -z -C set and also qcow2 virtio disk without -z -C set and did not notice any

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: hold enough space for global_rsv

2012-02-27 Thread Liu Bo
On 02/27/2012 09:29 PM, Johannes Hirte wrote: Am Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:51:59 +0800 schrieb Liu Bo liubo2...@cn.fujitsu.com: I've kept hitting enospc warnings of global_rsv while running defragment on files: btrfs: block rsv returned -28 WARNING: at fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:5984