Bug/regression: Read-only mount not read-only

We've just had someone on IRC with a problem mounting their FS. The main problem is that they've got a corrupt log tree. That isn't the subject of this email, though. The issue I'd like to raise is that even with -oro as a point option, the FS is trying to replay the log tree. The dmesg

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: fix unprotected list move from unused_bgs to deleted_bgs list

On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > fdmanana posted on Fri, 27 Nov 2015 16:38:25 + as excerpted: > >> As of my previous change titled "Btrfs: fix scrub preventing unused >> block groups from being deleted", the following warning at >>

Re: cannot move ro-snapshot directly but indirectly works

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 22:06 Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > > Hey. > > Not sure whether this is intended or not, but it feels at least > somewhat strange: > > Consider I have a readonly snapshot (the only subvol here): > /btrfs/snapshots/ro-snapshot > now I want to move

Re: BTRFS: could not find root 8

>>> After upgrading from systemd227 to 228 >>> these messages began to show up during boot: >>> [ 24.652118] BTRFS: could not find root 8 >>> [ 24.664742] BTRFS: could not find root 8 > b. For the OP, is it possible quotas was ever enabled on this file system? Quotas have never been enabled

Re: slowness when cp respectively send/receiving on top of dm-crypt

On Sat, 2015-11-28 at 11:34 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: > It sounds to me like maybe LUKS is configured to use an encryption > algorithm that isn't subject to CPU optimized support, e.g. aes-xts > on > my laptop gets 1600MiB/s where serpent-cbc gets only 68MiB/s and pegs > the CPU. This is reported

Re: shall distros run btrfsck on boot?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 11/23/15 11:02 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > Hey. > > Short question since that came up on debian-devel. > > Now that btrfs check get's more and more useful, are the > developers going to recommend running it periodically on boot (of >

Re: BTRFS: could not find root 8

On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 2:40 AM, Imran Geriskovan wrote: After upgrading from systemd227 to 228 these messages began to show up during boot: [ 24.652118] BTRFS: could not find root 8 [ 24.664742] BTRFS: could not find root 8 > >> b. For the OP,

Re: slowness when cp respectively send/receiving on top of dm-crypt

Hi Chris, some more comments after I have done some fresh tests. On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 5:14 AM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > On Fri, 2015-11-27 at 20:00 +0100, Henk Slager wrote: >> As far as I can guess this is transfers between Seagate Archive 8TB >> SMR drives.

Re: slowness when cp respectively send/receiving on top of dm-crypt

On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > On Sat, 2015-11-28 at 11:34 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: >> It sounds to me like maybe LUKS is configured to use an encryption >> algorithm that isn't subject to CPU optimized support, e.g. aes-xts >> on >>

Re: BTRFS: could not find root 8

On a btrfs that has never had quota enabled: # btrfs qgroup show / Results in kernel message: [ 378.103836] BTRFS: could not find root 8 Each time I issue the same command, I get another "could not find..." message. This is rather indirect, but probably means quotas aren't enabled, and I'd

Re: BTRFS: could not find root 8

It's on every boot. With systemd.log_level=debug boot parameter appended, I could not find any meaningful operation just before the message. The systemd journal boot dump will be in your personal mailbox shortly. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body

Re: slowness when cp respectively send/receiving on top of dm-crypt

Henk Slager posted on Sat, 28 Nov 2015 19:37:31 +0100 as excerpted: > I did cp a 165G file to the SMR drive. The source had 130 extents and > just uncompressed btrfs raid10 fs, steadily 150+MB/s throughput. The fs > on the SMR disk is mounted like this: > /dev/mapper/dmcrypt_smr on /mnt/smr type

Re: [PATCH 0/7] Let user specify the kernel version for features

On 11/27/2015 04:41 PM, Anand Jain wrote: I meant, it can be done in packaging level and it's much easier to do. Its all about trade off, and there is no right or wrong, so is tough to arrive at a conclusion even before this was implemented. Below are the choices considered, now