Re: Btrfs/SSD

> Traditional hard drives usually do this too these days (they've been > under-provisioned since before SSD's existed), which is part of why older > disks tend to be noisier and slower (the reserved space is usually at the far > inside or outside of the platter, so using sectors from there to

Re: Btrfs/SSD

(not a hardcore enterprise drives, just good customer ones) and leave stuff to a drive + use OS that gives you trim and you should be golden > On 15 May 2017, at 00:01, Imran Geriskovan <imran.gerisko...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 5/14/17, Tomasz Kusmierz <tom.kusmi...@gmai

Re: Btrfs/SSD

(not a hardcore enterprise drives, just good customer ones) and leave stuff to a drive + use OS that gives you trim and you should be golden > On 15 May 2017, at 00:01, Imran Geriskovan <imran.gerisko...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 5/14/17, Tomasz Kusmierz <tom.kusmi...@gmai

Re: Btrfs/SSD

All stuff that Chris wrote holds true, I just wanted to add flash specific information (from my experience of writing low level code for operating flash) So with flash, to erase you have to erase a large allocation block, usually it used to be 128kB (plus some crc data and stuff makes more than

Re: Shrinking a device - performance?

I’ve glazed over on “Not only that …” … can you make youtube video of that : > On 28 Mar 2017, at 16:06, Peter Grandi wrote: > >> I glazed over at “This is going to be long” … :) >>> [ ... ] > > Not only that, you also top-posted while quoting it pointlessly > in

Re: Shrinking a device - performance?

I glazed over at “This is going to be long” … :) > On 28 Mar 2017, at 15:43, Peter Grandi wrote: > > This is going to be long because I am writing something detailed > hoping pointlessly that someone in the future will find it by > searching the list archives while

Re: FS gives kernel UPS on attempt to create snapshot and after running balance it's unmountable.

) in cleanup_transaction:1854: errno=-2 No such entry On 21 February 2017 at 22:18, Tomasz Kusmierz <tom.kusmi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Anyone ? > > On 18 Feb 2017, at 16:44, Tomasz Kusmierz <tom.kusmi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > So Qu, > > currently my situation is th

Re: FS gives kernel UPS on attempt to create snapshot and after running balance it's unmountable.

Anyone ? On 18 Feb 2017, at 16:44, Tomasz Kusmierz <tom.kusmi...@gmail.com> wrote: So Qu, currently my situation is that: I've tried to go btrfs scan --repair, and it did relair some stuff is qgroup's ... then tried to mont it and, surprise surpeire system locked out in 20 seconds.

Re: FS gives kernel UPS on attempt to create snapshot and after running balance it's unmountable.

t;OK" ... another attempt to mount /dev/sdc /mnt2/main_pool and again after 20 seconds system locks up hard. There is nothing in messages, nothing in dmesg ... I think that system lock up so hard that master btrfs filesystem does not get time those logs pushed to disk. On 16 February

Re: FS gives kernel UPS on attempt to create snapshot and after running balance it's unmountable.

attempted a full FS balance that caused this FS to be unmountable. Is there any other debug you would require before I proceed (I’ve got a lot i On 16 Feb 2017, at 01:26, Qu Wenruo <quwen...@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: At 02/15/2017 10:11 PM, Tomasz Kusmierz wrote: So guys, any help here ? I’m

Re: FS gives kernel UPS on attempt to create snapshot and after running balance it's unmountable.

So guys, any help here ? I’m kinda stuck now with system just idling and doing nothing while I wait for some feedback ... > On 14 Feb 2017, at 19:38, Tomasz Kusmierz <tom.kusmi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > [root@server ~]# btrfs-show-super -af /dev/sdc > superblock: bytenr=6553

Re: FS gives kernel UPS on attempt to create snapshot and after running balance it's unmountable.

t 02/14/2017 08:23 AM, Tomasz Kusmierz wrote: >> >> Forgot to mention: >> >> btrfs inspect-internal dump-super -af /dev/sdc > > > Your btrfs-progs is somewhat old, which doesn't integrate dump super into > inspect-internal. > > In that case, you can use btr

Re: FS gives kernel UPS on attempt to create snapshot and after running balance it's unmountable.

min-dev-size [options] Get the minimum size the device can be shrunk to. The query various internal information On 13 February 2017 at 14:58, Tomasz Kusmierz <tom.kusmi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Problem is to send a larger log into this mailing list :/ > > Anyway: uname -

Re: FS gives kernel UPS on attempt to create snapshot and after running balance it's unmountable.

169 0) itemoff 15887 itemsize 33 Feb 10 00:29:11 server kernel: #011#011extent refs 1 gen 142940 flags 258 Feb 10 00:29:11 server kernel: #011#011shared block backref parent 5224641380352 Feb 10 00:29:11 server kernel: #011item 12 key (12288258162688 169 0) itemoff 15854 itemsize 33 Feb 10 00:29:11

FS gives kernel UPS on attempt to create snapshot and after running balance it's unmountable.

Hi all, So my main storage filesystem got some sort of veird corruption (that I can gather). Everything seems to work OK, but when I try to create a snapshot or run balance (no filters) it will get remounted read only. Fun part is that balance seems to be running even on read only FS, and I

Re: Best practices for raid 1

That was long winded way of saying “there is no mechanism in btrfs to tell you exactly which device is missing” but thanks anyway. > On 12 Jan 2017, at 12:47, Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 2017-01-11 15:37, Tomasz Kusmierz wrote: >> I would li

Re: Best practices for raid 1

I would like to use this thread to ask few questions: If we have 2 devices dying on us and we run RAID6 - this theoretically will still run (despite our current problems). Now let’s say that we booted up raid6 of 10 disk and 2 of them dies but operator does NOT know what are dev ID of disk

Re: Best practices for raid 1

> On 10 Jan 2017, at 21:07, Vinko Magecic > wrote: > > Hello, > > I set up a raid 1 with two btrfs devices and came across some situations in > my testing that I can't get a straight answer on. > 1) When replacing a volume, do I still need to `umount /path`

Re: How to get back a deleted sub-volume.

Chris, the "btrfs-show-super -fa" gives me nothing useful to work with. the "btrfs-find-root -a " is actually something that I was already using (see original post), but the list of roots given had a rather LARGE hole of 200 generations that is located between right after I've had everything

Re: How to get back a deleted sub-volume.

nerations of FS (over 200 generations missing) and the most recent generation that actually can me touched by btrfs restore is over a month old. How to over come that ? On 11 December 2016 at 19:00, Chris Murphy <li...@colorremedies.com> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Tomasz Kusm

How to get back a deleted sub-volume.

Hi, So, I've found my self in a pickle after following this steps: 1. trying to migrate an array to different system, it became apparent that importing array there was not possible to import it because I've had a very large amount of snapshots (every 15 minutes during office hours amounting to

Re: Convert from RAID 5 to 10

Also I'll quote you on throwing under the bus thing :) (I actually like that justification) On 1 December 2016 at 17:28, Chris Murphy <li...@colorremedies.com> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Tomasz Kusmierz <tom.kusmi...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Please, I beg you add

Re: Convert from RAID 5 to 10

On 30 November 2016 at 19:09, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn > wrote: > >> The stability info could be improved, but _absolutely none_ of the things >> mentioned as issues with raid1 are specific to

Re: RAID system with adaption to changed number of disks

I think you just described all the benefits of btrfs in that type of configuration unfortunately after btrfs RAID 5 & 6 was marked as OK it got marked as "it will eat your data" (and there is a tone of people in random places poping up with raid 5 & 6 that just killed their data) On 11

Re: raid levels and NAS drives

On 10 October 2016 at 02:01, ronnie sahlberg wrote: > (without html this time.) > > Nas drives are more expensive but also more durable than the normal consumer > drives, but not as durable as enterprise drives. > They are meant for near continous use, compared to

Re: raid levels and NAS drives

And what exactly are NAS drives ? Are you talking marketing by any chance ? Please, tell me you got the pun. On 10 October 2016 at 00:12, Charles Zeitler wrote: > Is there any advantage to using NAS drives > under RAID levels, as oppposed to regular > 'desktop' drives for

Some help with the code.

This is predominantly for maintainers: I've noticed that there is a lot of code for btrfs ... and after few glimpses I've noticed that there are occurrences which beg for some refactoring to make it less of a pain to maintain. I'm speaking of occurrences where: - within a function there are

Re: Status of SMR with BTRFS

Sorry for late reply, there was a lot of traffic in this thread so: 1. I do apologize but I've got a wrong end of the stick, I was convinced that btrfs does cause corruption on your disk because some of the link that you've hav in original post were pointing to topics with corruptions going on,

Re: Status of SMR with BTRFS

Just please don't take it as picking or something: > It's a Seagate Expansion Desktop 5TB (USB3). It is probably a ST5000DM000. this is TGMR not SMR disk: http://www.seagate.com/www-content/product-content/desktop-hdd-fam/en-us/docs/100743772a.pdf So it still confirms to standard record strategy

Re: How can I get blockdev offsets of btrfs chunks for a file?

No answer here, but mate if you are involved in anything that will provide some more automated backup tool for btrfs you got a lot of silent people rooting for you. > On 16 Jul 2016, at 00:21, Eric Wheeler wrote: > > Hello all, > > We do btrfs subvolume snapshots

Re: Status of SMR with BTRFS

Thou I’m not a hardcore storage system professional: What disk are you using ? There are two types: 1. SMR managed by device firmware. BTRFS sees that as a normal block device … problems you get are not related to BTRFS it self … 2. SMR managed by host system, BTRFS still does see this as a

Re: raid1 has failing disks, but smart is clear

> > Well, I was able to run memtest on the system last night, that passed with > flying colors, so I'm now leaning toward the problem being in the sas card. > But I'll have to run some more tests. > Seriously use the "stres.sh" for couple of days, When I was running memtest it was running

Re: btrfs RAID 10 truncates files over 2G to 4096 bytes.

> On 7 Jul 2016, at 02:46, Chris Murphy wrote: > Chaps, I didn’t wanted this to spring up as a performance of btrfs argument, BUT you are throwing a lot of useful data, maybe diverting some of it into wiki ? you know, us normal people might find it useful for

Re: btrfs RAID 10 truncates files over 2G to 4096 bytes.

> On 7 Jul 2016, at 00:22, Kai Krakow <hurikha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Am Wed, 6 Jul 2016 13:20:15 +0100 > schrieb Tomasz Kusmierz <tom.kusmi...@gmail.com>: > >> When I think of it, I did move this folder first when filesystem was >> RAID 1 (or not eve

Re: raid1 has failing disks, but smart is clear

> On 6 Jul 2016, at 23:14, Corey Coughlin wrote: > > Hi all, >Hoping you all can help, have a strange problem, think I know what's going > on, but could use some verification. I set up a raid1 type btrfs filesystem > on an Ubuntu 16.04 system, here's what it

Re: btrfs RAID 10 truncates files over 2G to 4096 bytes.

> On 6 Jul 2016, at 22:41, Henk Slager <eye...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Tomasz Kusmierz <tom.kusmi...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >>> On 6 Jul 2016, at 02:25, Henk Slager <eye...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>

Re: btrfs RAID 10 truncates files over 2G to 4096 bytes.

> On 6 Jul 2016, at 02:25, Henk Slager <eye...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 2:32 AM, Tomasz Kusmierz <tom.kusmi...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> On 6 Jul 2016, at 00:30, Henk Slager <eye...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Mo

Re: btrfs RAID 10 truncates files over 2G to 4096 bytes.

On 6 Jul 2016, at 00:30, Henk Slager <eye...@gmail.com <mailto:eye...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 11:28 PM, Tomasz Kusmierz <tom.kusmi...@gmail.com > <mailto:tom.kusmi...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> I did consider that, but: >> - some

Re: btrfs RAID 10 truncates files over 2G to 4096 bytes.

, at 22:13, Henk Slager <eye...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 1:36 AM, Tomasz Kusmierz <tom.kusmi...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> My setup is that I use one file system for / and /home (on SSD) and a >> larger raid 10 for /mn

btrfs RAID 10 truncates files over 2G to 4096 bytes.

Hi, My setup is that I use one file system for / and /home (on SSD) and a larger raid 10 for /mnt/share (6 x 2TB). Today I've discovered that 14 of files that are supposed to be over 2GB are in fact just 4096 bytes. I've checked the content of those 4KB and it seems that it does contain

Btrfs transaction checksum corruption losing root of the tree bizarre UUID change.

Hi all ! So it been some time with btrfs, and so far I was very pleased, but since I've upgraded to ubuntu from 13.10 to 14.04 problems started to occur (YES I know this might be unrelated). So in the past I've had problems with btrfs which turned out to be a problem caused by static from

open_ctree failure on upgrading 3.7 to 3.8 kernel

Hi, Long story short: I've got btrfs raid10 six disk array plus 2 other disks just having a normal setup btrfs filesystems. Everything was running happily under linux 3.5 and 3.7. 3.5 was a stock ubuntu kernel, 3.7 was slightly less stock ubuntu kernel. Now I've upgraded my box to 3.8 and none

Changing node leaf size on live partition.

Hi, Question is pretty simple: How to change node size and leaf size on previously created partition? Now, I know what most people will say: you should've be smarter while typing mkfs.btrfs. Well, I'm intending to convert in place ext4 partition but there seems to be no option for leaf and

Changing node leaf size on live partition.

Hi, Question is pretty simple: How to change node size and leaf size on previously created partition? Now, I know what most people will say: you should've be smarter while typing mkfs.btrfs. Well, I'm intending to convert in place ext4 partition but there seems to be no option for leaf and

Re: btrfs for files 10GB = random spontaneous CRC failure.

On 16/01/13 09:21, Bernd Schubert wrote: On 01/16/2013 12:32 AM, Tom Kusmierz wrote: p.s. bizzare that when I fill ext4 partition with test data everything check's up OK (crc over all files), but with Chris tool it gets corrupted - for both Adaptec crappy pcie controller and for mother board

Re: btrfs for files 10GB = random spontaneous CRC failure.

On 05/02/13 12:49, Chris Mason wrote: On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 03:16:34AM -0700, Tomasz Kusmierz wrote: On 16/01/13 09:21, Bernd Schubert wrote: On 01/16/2013 12:32 AM, Tom Kusmierz wrote: p.s. bizzare that when I fill ext4 partition with test data everything check's up OK (crc over all files

Re: btrfs for files 10GB = random spontaneous CRC failure.

On 05/02/13 13:46, Roman Mamedov wrote: On Tue, 05 Feb 2013 10:16:34 + Tomasz Kusmierz tom.kusmi...@gmail.com wrote: that I was using one of those fantastic pci 4 port ethernet cards and printer was directly to it - after moving it and everything else to switch all problem and issues have

btrfs for files 10GB = random spontaneous CRC failure.

Hi, Since I had some free time over Christmas, I decided to conduct few tests over btrFS to se how it will cope with real life storage for normal gray users and I've found that filesystem will always mess up your files that are larger than 10GB. Long story: I've used my set of data that

btrfs for files 10GB = random spontaneous CRC failure.

Hi, Since I had some free time over Christmas, I decided to conduct few tests over btrFS to se how it will cope with real life storage for normal gray users and I've found that filesystem will always mess up your files that are larger than 10GB. Long story: I've used my set of data that

Re: btrfs for files 10GB = random spontaneous CRC failure.

On 14/01/13 11:25, Roman Mamedov wrote: Hello, On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:17:17 + Tomasz Kusmierz tom.kusmi...@gmail.com wrote: this point I was a bit spooked up that my controllers are failing or Which controller manufacturer/model? Well, this is a home server (which I preffer to tinker

Re: btrfs for files 10GB = random spontaneous CRC failure.

On 14/01/13 14:59, Chris Mason wrote: On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 04:09:47AM -0700, Tomasz Kusmierz wrote: Hi, Since I had some free time over Christmas, I decided to conduct few tests over btrFS to se how it will cope with real life storage for normal gray users and I've found that filesystem

Re: btrfs for files 10GB = random spontaneous CRC failure.

On 14/01/13 15:57, Chris Mason wrote: On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 08:22:36AM -0700, Tomasz Kusmierz wrote: On 14/01/13 14:59, Chris Mason wrote: On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 04:09:47AM -0700, Tomasz Kusmierz wrote: Hi, Since I had some free time over Christmas, I decided to conduct few tests over

Re: btrfs for files 10GB = random spontaneous CRC failure.

On 14/01/13 16:20, Roman Mamedov wrote: On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 15:22:36 + Tomasz Kusmierz tom.kusmi...@gmail.com wrote: 1) create a single drive default btrfs volume on single partition - fill with test data - scrub - admire errors. Did you try ruling out btrfs as the cause of the problem