Hallo,
I've added a fourth device (/dev/sdf1; connected via USB) to my 3-disks-
btrfs bundle (data raid0, metadata raid1), and then I run "balance".
That needed (for about 6 TByte data) about 17 hours.
It finished with
ERROR: error during balancing '/srv/MM' - No space left on device
There may
Hallo, Alexander,
Du meintest am 01.05.13:
> If I want to manage a complete disk with btrfs, what's the "Best
> Practice"? Would it be best to create the btrfs filesystem on
> "/dev/sdb", or would it be better to create just one partition from
> start to end and then do "mkfs.btrfs /dev/sdb1"?
>
Hallo, Alexander,
Du meintest am 30.04.13:
> On my HP Compaq dc5800 with Ubuntu 13.04 and their
> 3.8.0-19-lowlatency kernel, I've got quite some kernel traces in the
> syslog.
It's a very good idea to use the newest kernel for btrfs. 3.8.0 is
really old.
Just try kernel 3.8.10.
Viele Gruess
Hallo, Jon,
Du meintest am 21.03.13:
> First btrfs-show (git):
> **
> ** WARNING: this program is considered deprecated
> ** Please consider to switch to the btrfs utility
"btrfs-show" makes nasty errors, especially together with "blkid".
Delete "btrfs-show". That's the safe way.
Viele Grues
Hallo, Jon,
Du meintest am 21.03.13:
>>> 2. the current git btrfs-show and btrfs fi show both output
>>> *different* devices for device with UUID
>>> b5dc52bd-21bf-4173-8049-d54d88c82240, and they're both wrong.
>> does blkid output find that uuid anywhere?
>> Since you're working in git, can y
Hallo, Chris,
Du meintest am 05.01.13:
>> Seems to be a problem which is invoked by "btrfs-show".
> Old command. I'm not sure if it's kept up to date. You should use
> 'btrfs filesystem show' or 'btrfs fi show' for short.
Yes - i've learned my lesson ...
But then: the best solution for other p
Hallo, Jan,
Du meintest am 05.01.13:
>> Has "mkfs.btrfs" to delete the "/dev/sdb" data when it overwrites
>> the configuration with data for partitions? Or has the user to run
>> something like "dd if=/dev/zero ..."?
> Take a look at:
> https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Problem_FAQ#How_to_
Hallo, linux-btrfs,
on my testing USB stick
btrfs fi show
shows
Label: 'mylabel' uuid: e9716633-49f1-44a0-a3b4-90ba9736a540
Total devices 3 FS bytes used 28.00KB
devid3 size 1.00GB used 288.00MB path /dev/sdb3
devid2 size 1.00GB used 512.00MB path /dev/s
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 03.01.13:
>> My usual way:
>>
>> mkfs.btrfs -d raid0 -m raid1 /dev/sdb /dev/sdc /dev/sdd ...
>>
>> One call for some devices.
>> Wenn I add the option "-L mylabel" then each device gets the same
>> label, and therefore some other programs can't find the (one) d
Hallo, Martin,
Du meintest am 05.01.13:
>> No - I don't rely on such an assumption.
>> In the special case I'm just working with I want to use the whole
>> disk only for btrfs.
>>
>> In other cases I work with partitions, and there is just the same
>> problem: at least "blkid" and "findfs" don't
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 03.01.13:
[...]
>>> And then for blkid:
>>
>>> # blkid
>>> /dev/sdb: LABEL="test2" UUID="3d5390d0-a41b-4f70-a4e5-b47295d3c717"
>>> UUID_SUB="a5bbaa83-6d6f-45dc-9804-9442350c3bc9" TYPE="btrfs"
>>> /dev/sdc: LABEL="test2" UUID="3d5390d0-a41b-4f70-a4e5-b47295d3c717"
>>>
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 03.01.13:
>> On my system (a bundle of /dev/sdb, /dev/sdc, /dev/sdd)
>>
>> btrfs fi label /dev/sdb mylabel
>>
>> only sets the label on the (unmounted) device /dev/sdb. "/dev/sdc"
>> and "/dev/sdd" remain without label.
>This is a bug.
Very very strange .
Hallo, Chris,
Du meintest am 03.01.13:
>>> MBR has no mechanism for labeling the disk itself or the
>>> partitions. So /dev/sda cannot have a label or a name.
>> Sure?
> Yes. MBR itself has no place holder to encode a disk name or
> partition name. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_boot_recor
Hallo, Chris,
Du meintest am 03.01.13:
>>> On my system (a bundle of /dev/sdb, /dev/sdc, /dev/sdd)
>>>
>>>btrfs fi label /dev/sdb mylabel
>>>
>>> only sets the label on the (unmounted) device /dev/sdb. "/dev/sdc"
>>> and "/dev/sdd" remain without label.
>> This is a bug.
> It's a bug
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 03.01.13:
>> On my system (a bundle of /dev/sdb, /dev/sdc, /dev/sdd)
>>
>> btrfs fi label /dev/sdb mylabel
>>
>> only sets the label on the (unmounted) device /dev/sdb. "/dev/sdc"
>> and "/dev/sdd" remain without label.
>This is a bug.
Hmmm - I'll test it
Hallo, Chris,
Du meintest am 03.01.13:
> So 'btrfs fi label' relabeling with an unmounted system changes the
> file system label metadata on all member devices, according to btrfs
> fi label. Now when I use file:
On my system (a bundle of /dev/sdb, /dev/sdc, /dev/sdd)
btrfs fi label /de
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 03.01.13:
[...]
>>> Trying to use filesystem labels to give unique and stable device
>>> IDs is the wrong tool for the job.
>> I beg to differ. On my machines it's the simpliest way, and it's a
>> sure way.
>No, because *it* *doesn't* *work*. This is not a bug.
Hallo, Chris,
Du meintest am 03.01.13:
> Device can mean more than one thing, physical device, partition, md
> device, logical volume, etc.
> Label is more narrowly defined to that of filesystems.
> MBR has no mechanism for labeling the disk itself or the partitions.
> So /dev/sda cannot have a
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 03.01.13:
But for what purpose offers "mkfs.btrfs" this option?
>>>So that you don't have to run the label command immediately
>>>after making the filesystem.
>> But other filesystems don't put the label onto more than 1 device.
>> There's the problem f
Hallo, cwillu,
Du meintest am 03.01.13:
>> But other filesystems don't put the label onto more than 1 device.
>> There's the problem for/with btrfs.
> Other filesystems don't exist on more than one device, so of course
> they don't put a label on more than one device.
Yes, I know.
And let me re
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 03.01.13:
>> But for what purpose offers "mkfs.btrfs" this option?
>So that you don't have to run the label command immediately after
> making the filesystem. Most mkfs implementations for different
> filesystems have something similar, usually with the -L option.
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 03.01.13:
>> please delete the option "-L" (for labelling) in "mkfs.btrfs", in
>> some configurations it doesn't work as expected.
>>
>> My usual way:
>>
>> mkfs.btrfs -d raid0 -m raid1 /dev/sdb /dev/sdc /dev/sdd ...
>>
>> One call for some devices.
>> Wenn I a
Hallo, linux-btrfs,
please delete the option "-L" (for labelling) in "mkfs.btrfs", in some
configurations it doesn't work as expected.
My usual way:
mkfs.btrfs -d raid0 -m raid1 /dev/sdb /dev/sdc /dev/sdd ...
One call for some devices.
Wenn I add the option "-L mylabel" then each devi
Hallo, Florian,
Du meintest am 05.08.12:
> I was playing with btrfs and accidentally formatted the disk directly
> (/dev/sdb instead of sdb1). Since then I rewrote the GPT partition
> table, recreated the partition and ran btrfs device scan. Still,
> btrfs filesystem show prints:
> root@horus /m
Hallo, Arnd,
Du meintest am 30.07.12:
>> btrfs only fails when you have hundreds of hardlinks to the same
>> file in the *same* directory ... certainly not a standard use case.
> Actually, "hundreds of hardlinks" is certainly over optimistic.
> In my testing 15 links in the same directory were e
Hallo, ,
Du meintest am 14.07.12:
> The problem is that the BTRFS raid10 filesystem without any
> understandable cause refuses to mount.
> Here is dmesg output:
> [77847.845540] device label linux-btrfs-raid10 devid 3 transid 45639
> /dev/sdc1 [77848.633912] btrfs: allowing degraded mounts
>
Hallo, Markus,
Du meintest am 01.07.12:
> I am running btrfs for a few months now. I just realized that I have
> a few strange directories in /
> % ls / -1
> ?
> ???J??
> Q???
> PL
> PR
> bin
> boot
> dev
> etc
> home
> lib
> lib32
> lib64
> lost+found
> media
> mnt
> opt
> proc
> p?c'?
Hallo, Goffredo,
Du meintest am 20.06.12:
[...]
> Am not saying that we *should* move the kernel away from /boot. I am
> only saying that having the kernel near /lib/modules *has* some
> advantages.
> Few year ago there are some gains to have a separate /boot (ah, the
> time when the bios were
Hallo, Chris,
Du meintest am 19.06.12:
>> I'm trying to figure out an algorithm from taking an arbitrary
>> mounted btrfs directory and break it down into:
>>
>>
>>
>> where, keep in mind, may not actually be part of the
>> mount.
> Do you want an API for this, or is it enough to wander throug
Hallo, Randall,
Du meintest am 07.06.12:
[...]
> I've just upgraded to 3.4.0 from git.kernel.org and I'm still running
> into problems. I checked the Problems FAQ and there doesn't seem to
> be anything that matches my problem.
[...]
> Any more help would be appreciated. Why is this happenin
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 06.06.12:
>>>The branch is fetchable with git from:
>>
>>> http://git.darksatanic.net/repo/btrfs-progs-unstable.git/
>>> integration-20120605
>> gcc convert.o -o convert
>> convert.o: In function `btrfs_item_key':
>> /tmp/btrfs-progs-unstable/ctree.h:1404: und
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 06.06.12:
>> git checkout integration-20120605
[...]
>Can you compare your Makefile with the one at [1] -- in particular
> the progs variable at line 21-23, the "all" target on line 37, and
> the "btrfs-convert" target on line 97. There definitely should not be
>
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 06.06.12:
>>> However, the third line with the problem looks like something out
>>> of date. Possibly a mis-merge?
>>
>> Where should I search?
>Well, the first thing would be to try a completely new clone of
> the repo, then git co integration-20120605, and run m
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 06.06.12:
> However, the third line with the problem looks like something out of
> date. Possibly a mis-merge?
Where should I search?
Viele Gruesse!
Helmut
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 05.06.12:
>The branch is fetchable with git from:
> http://git.darksatanic.net/repo/btrfs-progs-unstable.git/
> integration-20120605
There seems to be a bug inside:
[...]
gcc -g -O0 -o btrfsck btrfsck.o ctree.o disk-io.o radix-tree.o extent-
tree.o print-tree.
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 05.06.12:
[...]
>> And you can't use the console from where you have started the
>> "balance" command. Therefore I wrap this command:
>>
>> echo 'btrfs filesystem balance /btrfs' | at now
>... or just put it into the background with "btrfs bal start
> /moun
Hallo, Jim,
Du meintest am 05.06.12:
> /dev/sda 11T 4.9T 6.0T 46% /btrfs
> [root@advanced ~]# btrfs fi show
> failed to read /dev/sr0
> Label: none uuid: c21f1221-a224-4ba4-92e5-cdea0fa6d0f9
> Total devices 12 FS bytes used 4.76TB
> devid6 size 930.99GB use
Hallo, Martin,
Du meintest am 05.06.12:
>> --super works but my root tree 2 has many errors too.
>>
>> What can I do next?
> Have a data recovery company try to physically recover the bad
> harddisk to a good one
About 1 year ago I asked Kroll-Ontrack. They told me they couldn't (yet)
recover
Hallo, Randall,
Du meintest am 01.06.12:
> I'm having a problem with a newly extended btrfs volume. It is
> running on debian testing with an almost stock 3.1.0 kernel with a
> little bit of patches
You should use a newer kernel, p.e. 3.3.7 or 3.4
Viele Gruesse!
Helmut
--
To unsubscribe from t
Hallo, Martin,
Du meintest am 10.05.12:
[...]
>> Maybe we should evaluate the possiblility of such a "one file gets
>> on one disk" feature.
>>
>> Helmut Hullen has the use case: Many disks, totally non-critical but
>> nice-to-have data. If one disk die
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 09.05.12:
>> btrfs fi df /mnt/Scsi
>>
>> now tells
>>
>> Data, RAID0: total=183.18GB, used=76.60GB
>> Data: total=80.01GB, used=79.83GB
>> System, DUP: total=8.00MB, used=32.00KB
>> System: total=4.00MB, used=0.00
>> Metadata, DUP: total=1.00GB, used=192.74MB
>
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 09.05.12:
>>>As to the spurious "upgrade" of single to RAID-0, I thought Ilya
>>> had stopped it doing that. What kernel version are you running?
>> 3.2.9, self made.
>OK, I'm pretty sure that's too old -- it will "upgrade" single to
> RAID-0. You can probabl
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 09.05.12:
>>>mkfs.btrfs -m raid1 -d single should give you that.
>> Just a small bug, perhaps:
>>
>> created a system with
>>
>> mkfs.btrfs -m raid1 -d single /dev/sdl1
>> mount /dev/sdl1 /mnt/Scsi
>> btrfs device add /dev/sdk1 /mnt/Scsi
>>
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 07.05.12:
[...]
>> With a file system like ext2/3/4 I can work with several directories
>> which are mounted together, but (as said before) one broken disk
>> doesn't disturb the others.
>mkfs.btrfs -m raid1 -d single should give you that.
Just a small bug, perh
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 07.05.12:
>>>mkfs.btrfs -m raid1 -d single should give you that.
>> What's the difference to
>>
>> mkfs.btrfs -m raid1 -d raid0
> - RAID-0 stripes each piece of data across all the disks.
> - single puts data on one disk at a time.
[...]
>In fact, t
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 08.05.12:
>>> Otherwise if you remove a disk from a raid0 (doesn't matter if you
>>> have 2 or 5 or x disks in the fs, btrfs should stripe above all
>>> disks) your fs should be broken.
>> Not with btrfs ... there it works even with
>>
>> mkfs.btrfs -m raid1 -d raid
Hallo, Felix,
Du meintest am 08.05.12:
adding a bigger disk
deleting/removing a smaller disk
with simple commands.
[...]
>>> Is it really possible to remove a disk from btrfs (created with -d
>>> single) without losing the data on that disk?
>>
>> When th
Hallo, Felix,
Du meintest am 08.05.12:
>> As I've written many times: I want a system for my video collection
>> which allows
>>
>> adding a bigger disk
>> deleting/removing a smaller disk
>>
>> with simple commands.
>>
>> btrfs seems to be able to do that (and I have tested thi
Hallo, Felix,
Du meintest am 08.05.12:
>> Why should I use RAID0 with a bundle of ext2/3/4? Mounting on/in the
>> directory tree does the job.
> Nobody told you that you should do it. What EVERYBODY here is telling
> you: The problem you have right now would be the same damn problem,
> no matter
Hallo, Clemens,
Du meintest am 08.05.12:
>>> But where's the gain? If a disk fails I have a lot of tools for
>>> repairing an ext2/3/4 system.
> Nope, when a disk in your ext4 raid0 array fails, you are just as
> doomed.
Why should I use RAID0 with a bundle of ext2/3/4? Mounting on/in the
dir
Hallo, Fajar,
Du meintest am 08.05.12:
>>> And you can use three BTRFS filesystems the same way as three Ext4
>>> filesystems if you prefer such a setup if the time spent for
>>> restoring the backup does not make up the cost for one additional
>>> disk for you.
>>
>> But where's the gain? If a d
Hallo, Martin,
Du meintest am 08.05.12:
>> No - since some years I use a kind of outsourced backup. A copy of
>> all data is on a bundle of disks somewhere in the neighbourhood.
>> As mentionend: the data isn't business critical, it's just "nice to
>> have". It's not worth something like raid1
Hallo, Daniel,
Du meintest am 07.05.12:
>>mkfs.btrfs -m raid1 -d raid0
>>
>> with 3 disks gives me a "cluster" which looks like 1 disk/partition/
>> directory.
>> If one disk fails nothing is usable.
> How is that different from putting ext on top of a raid0?
Classic raid0 doesn't allow de
Hallo, Daniel,
Du meintest am 07.05.12:
>> Yes - I know. But btrfs promises that I can add bigger disks and
>> delete smaller disks "on the fly". For something like a video
>> collection which will grow on and on an interesting feature. And
>> such a (big) collection does need a "gradfather-fathe
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 07.05.12:
>> With a file system like ext2/3/4 I can work with several directories
>> which are mounted together, but (as said before) one broken disk
>> doesn't disturb the others.
>mkfs.btrfs -m raid1 -d single should give you that.
What's the difference to
Hallo, Felix,
Du meintest am 07.05.12:
>> I'm just going back to ext4 - then one broken disk doesn't disturb
>> the contents of the other disks.
> ?! If you use raid0 one broken disk will always disturb the contents
> of the other disks, that is what raid0 does, no matter what
> filesystem you u
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 07.05.12:
>> It's dead - R.I.P.
>Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. I don't think we can point the
> finger at btrfs here.
a) you know what to do with the bearer?
b) I like such errors - completely independent, but simultaneously.
>It looks like you've lost
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 07.05.12:
>> === boot messages, kernel related ==
>>
>> [boot with kernel 3.3.4]
>> May 7 06:55:26 Arktur kernel: ata5: exception Emask 0x10 SAct 0x0
>> SErr 0x1 action 0xe frozen
>> May 7 06:55:26 Arktur kernel: ata5: SError: { PHYRdy
Hallo, Fajar,
Du meintest am 07.05.12:
>> For some months I run btrfs unter kernel 3.2.5 and 3.2.9, without
>> problems.
>>
>> Yesterday I compiled kernel 3.3.4, and this morning I started the
>> machine with this kernel. There may be some ugly problems.
>> Data, RAID0: total=5.29TB, used=4.29T
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 07.05.12:
>> Yesterday I compiled kernel 3.3.4, and this morning I started the
>> machine with this kernel. There may be some ugly problems.
>>
>> Copying something into the btrfs "directory" worked well for some
>> files, and then I got error messages (I've not copied
Hallo,
"never change a running system" ...
For some months I run btrfs unter kernel 3.2.5 and 3.2.9, without
problems.
Yesterday I compiled kernel 3.3.4, and this morning I started the
machine with this kernel. There may be some ugly problems.
Copying something into the btrfs "directory" wo
Hallo, David,
Du meintest am 26.04.12:
>> I now use to delete about the first 10 MByte of the target disk via
>> "dd if=/dev/zero"
> FYI, the minimal amount of data you need to rewrite is 4k:
> dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/ice bs=1k count=4 seek=64
Thank you - I'll try to remember the next time I n
Hallo, Bart,
Du meintest am 26.04.12:
>>> As for the two filesystems shown in btrfs fi show... I have no clue
>>> what that is about. Did you maybe make a mistake to create a btrfs
>>> filesystem on the whole disk at first?
>> That is possible. But afterwards I certainly repartioned the device
>
Hallo, Ilya,
Du meintest am 21.03.12:
>>> I think this has been fixed in recent btrfs-progs, commit 32eff711.
>> It is fixed in some (or many) places, it is not fixed everywhere. I
>> had used kernel 3.2.9
> 32eff711 is supposed to fix it in more places, filesystem label and
> scrub status incl
Hallo, Ilya,
Du meintest am 21.03.12:
>> When I run
>>
>> btrfs filesystem label
>>
>> or
>>
>> btrfs scrub status /dev/sdxn
>>
>> then I get a lot of error messages with (p.e.)
>>
>> failed to read /dev/hda6: No such device or address
>> failed to read /dev/sdm7: No such devi
Hallo, Stefan,
Du meintest am 19.03.12:
> When a filesystem is mounted with the degraded option, it is
> possible that some of the devices are not there.
> btrfs_ioctl_dev_info() crashs in this case because the device
> name is a NULL pointer. This ioctl was only used for scrub.
Just for curiosi
Hallo, Martin,
Du meintest am 17.03.12:
btrfs scrub start /mnt/btr
and all was dead. Really dead. No access via keybord, no access
via SSH.
>>> what kernel are you using?
>> As mentioned some hours ago: 3.2.9 (self made).
>>> Are you by any chance on a 32 bit masch
Hallo, Martin,
Du meintest am 17.03.12:
btrfs scrub start /mnt/btr
and all was dead. Really dead. No access via keybord, no access
via SSH.
Kernel 3.2.9
[...]
> Please review the thread I started with subject:
> 3.2-rc4: scrubbing locks up the kernel, then hung t
Hallo, Arne,
Du meintest am 17.03.12 zum Thema Re: "scrub" stops the machine:
> On 03/17/12 17:35, Helmut Hullen wrote:
>>
>> btrfs scrub start /mnt/btr
>>
>> and all was dead. Really dead. No access via keybord, no access via
>> SSH.
>>
Hallo, linux-btrfs,
next problem ...
I had tested the next possible steps after deleting a partition.
btrfs device delete /dev/sdb1 /mnt/btr
worked well.
Then
btrfs scrub start /mnt/btr
and all was dead. Really dead. No access via keybord, no access via SSH.
Restarted the m
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 17.03.12:
>> What's the 'solution' though to Hugo's situation?
>> By 'solution' I mean the highest-utility way of dealing with unequal
>> devices problem in a two or more -up setting.
>Use mkfs.btrfs -d single, as I said in another part of this
> thread.
Does "si
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 17.03.12:
[no space left on device ...]
>>> Where is the problem, how can I use the full space?
>> Effectively it's missing the trigger to rebalance when the 'primary'
>> device starts to get full, or just to randomly spread the data
>> between the devices.
>No,
Hallo, Chris,
Du meintest am 17.03.12:
>> Where is the problem, how can I use the full space?
> Which kernel was this with Helmut?
Kernel 3.2.9 (self made)
btrfs-progs-20111030
Viele Gruesse!
Helmut
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a mes
Hallo, linux-btrfs,
I've (once more) created my test system:
mkfs.btrfs -d raid0 -m raid1 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdc1
73 GB + 146 GB.
Then I mounted it and copied about 150 GByte onto it. But copying was
incomplete, the job ended with "no space on ..."
# btrfs fi show
Label: 'Scsi' uuid: e30586
Hallo, linux-btrfs,
some commands still look for non existent devices.
I don't use "udev".
When I run
btrfs filesystem show
only the existent devices are shown - fine.
When I run
btrfs filesystem label
or
btrfs scrub status /dev/sdxn
then I get a lot of error messag
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 fil
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.
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 in
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 onl
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) w
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 "mkfs.btrfs" (and then copy the backup) when I want
these options?
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 deleting this option ... it seems to work as
expected only when I create a
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 26.02.12:
>>> What you need to do is, immediately after
>>> removing a device from the FS, zero the first part of the partition
>>> with dd and /dev/zero.
>>
>> Ok - I'll try again (not today ...).
>> If I remember correct in early times deleting only the first block
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 26.02.12:
>> My (planned) usual work (once a year or so):
>>
>> btrfs device add
>> btrfs filesystem balance
>> btrfs device delete
>OK, the real problem you're seeing is that when btrfs removes a
> device from the filesystem, that dev
Hallo, linux-btrfs,
I've (once again) tried "add" and "delete".
First, with 3 devices (partitions):
mkfs.btrfs -d raid0 -m raid1 /dev/sdk1 /dev/sdl1 /dev/sdm1
Mounted (to /mnt/btr), filled with about 100 GByte data.
Then
btrfs device add /dev/sdj1 /mnt/btr
results in
# show
Label: none
Hallo, Hugo,
Du meintest am 26.02.12:
>> Mounting seems to be no problem, but (p.e.) "delete" doesn't kill
>> the btrfs informations shown with (p.e.) "blkid /dev/sdy1",
>> especially it doesn't delete the label.
>What do you mean by "delete" here?
btrfs device delete
>The label i
Hallo, linux-btrfs,
maybe it's a big error using the commmand
mkfs.btrfs -L xyz /dev/sdx1 /dev/sdy1 /dev/sdz1
(and so labelling many partitions) because each device/partition gets
the same label.
Mounting seems to be no problem, but (p.e.) "delete" doesn't kill the
btrfs informations show
Hallo, Duncan,
Du meintest am 26.02.12:
> It's astonishing to me the number of people that come in here
> complaining about problems with a filesystem the kernel option of
> which says
> Title:
> Btrfs filesystem (EXPERIMENTAL) Unstable disk format
> Description (excerpt):
> Btrfs is highly e
Hallo, Wilfred,
Du meintest am 14.12.11:
> What is best practice when partitioning a device that holds one or
> more btr-filesystems
"That depends ..."
My favourite installation is a bundle of 2-TByte-disks which btrfs
presents as one big disk. data=raid0, metadata=raid1
It's a kind of archi
Hallo, Miao,
Du meintest am 14.12.11:
> When we use raid0 as the data profile, df command may show us a very
> inaccurate value of the available space, which may be much less than
> the real one. It may make the users puzzled. Fix it by changing the
> calculation of the available space, and makin
Hallo, Phillip,
Du meintest am 01.12.11:
>>> balance != resize
[...]
>> That has nothing to do with "resize".
> Right, so why are you talking about balance when this thread is about
> resize?
Ooops - sorry!
Viele Gruesse!
Helmut
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe li
Hallo, Phillip,
Du meintest am 30.11.11:
>> You start with a system of 2 disks. They get filled nearly
>> simultaneously.
>> Then you add a 3rd disk (which is empty at that time). Now it's a
>> good idea to run "balance" for equalizing the filling.
> balance != resize
I know.
p.e.
Start with 1
Hallo, Roman,
Du meintest am 01.12.11:
> Okay, adding a new device wasn't the best example to explain my
> point.
> What I meant is resizing a BTRFS partition, enlarging it or shrinking
> it as needed, while still on the same device.
That's no good example, too.
btrfs allows to bundle several
Hallo, Roman,
Du meintest am 01.12.11:
> What if I need to replace an individual device with a smaller or a
> larger one?
1) add the new device
2) balance (may be it's not necessary)
3) run "remove" for the "individual" device
4) remove it
5) balance
Viele Gruesse!
Helmut
--
To unsubscribe from
Hallo, Phillip,
Du meintest am 30.11.11:
> Currently the resize command is under filesystem, and takes a path to
> the mounted filesystem. This seems wrong to me. Shouldn't it be
> under device, and take a path to a device to resize?
No - it's a filesystem operation.
p.e.
You start with a sys
Hallo, Jan,
Du meintest am 23.11.11:
>> One big problem of btrfs seems to be: you can't see on which
>> partition/ disk the defect sector (or something else) may be
> A recent kernel (3.2, still rc) will tell you the byte number when an
> error occurs, and also give the the opportunity to resolv
Hallo, Blair,
Du meintest am 23.11.11:
>> I can't answer that, but I can tell you that fsck for btrfs right
>> now is almost useless. It can't fix anyting.
> Thank you, I've read that fsck doesn't fix anything. I was curious
> if doing the scrub would resolve it.
I had tried ... about 4 Tbyte
Hallo, Arne,
Du meintest am 02.11.11:
>> # btrfs scrub status /srv/MM
>>
>> scrub status for 120b036a-883f-46aa-bd9a-cb6a1897c8d2
>> scrub resumed at Wed Nov 2 17:02:07 2011 and was aborted after
>> 16519 secondstotal bytes scrubbed: 1.79TB with 61 errors
>> error details: read
Hallo,
I'd like to get some explanations ...
# btrfs filesystem show
Label: 'MMedia' uuid: 120b036a-883f-46aa-bd9a-cb6a1897c8d2
Total devices 3 FS bytes used 3.80TB
devid1 size 1.82TB used 1.29TB path /dev/sdg1
devid3 size 1.81TB used 1.29TB path /dev/sdc1
Hallo, Ilya,
Du meintest am 02.11.11:
> The Btrfs utility programs require libuuid to build. This can be
> found in the e2fsprogs sources, and is usually available as libuuid
> or e2fsprogs-devel from various distros. The other dependency is
> libattr +(libattr1-dev in Debian-based distros).
1 - 100 of 256 matches
Mail list logo
