Same thing here.
I've tried really hard, but even after 12 hours I wasn't able to get a
single warning from btrfs.
I think you cracked it!
Thanks,
Christian
2012/5/24 Martin Mailand :
> Hi,
> the ceph cluster is running under heavy load for the last 13 hours without a
> problem, dmesg is empty
Hi,
the ceph cluster is running under heavy load for the last 13 hours
without a problem, dmesg is empty and the performance is good.
-martin
Am 23.05.2012 21:12, schrieb Martin Mailand:
this patch is running for 3 hours without a Bug and without the Warning.
I will let it run overnight and r
Hi Josef,
this patch is running for 3 hours without a Bug and without the Warning.
I will let it run overnight and report tomorrow.
It looks very good ;-)
-martin
Am 23.05.2012 17:02, schrieb Josef Bacik:
Ok give this a shot, it should do it. Thanks,
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send th
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 02:34:43PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
> 2012/5/22 Josef Bacik :
> >>
> >
> > Yeah you would also need to change orphan_meta_reserved. I fixed this by
> > just
> > taking the BTRFS_I(inode)->lock when messing with these since we don't want
> > to
> > take up all that
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 02:34:43PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
> 2012/5/22 Josef Bacik :
> >>
> >
> > Yeah you would also need to change orphan_meta_reserved. I fixed this by
> > just
> > taking the BTRFS_I(inode)->lock when messing with these since we don't want
> > to
> > take up all that
2012/5/22 Josef Bacik :
>>
>
> Yeah you would also need to change orphan_meta_reserved. I fixed this by just
> taking the BTRFS_I(inode)->lock when messing with these since we don't want to
> take up all that space in the inode just for a marker. I ran this patch for 3
> hours with no issues, let
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 12:29:59PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
> 2012/5/21 Miao Xie :
> > Hi Josef,
> >
> > On fri, 18 May 2012 15:01:05 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> >> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h b/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h
> >> index 9b9b15f..492c74f 100644
> >> --- a/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 11:59:54AM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
> Hi Josef,
>
> On fri, 18 May 2012 15:01:05 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h b/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h
> > index 9b9b15f..492c74f 100644
> > --- a/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h
> > +++ b/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h
> >
2012/5/21 Miao Xie :
> Hi Josef,
>
> On fri, 18 May 2012 15:01:05 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h b/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h
>> index 9b9b15f..492c74f 100644
>> --- a/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h
>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h
>> @@ -57,9 +57,6 @@ struct btrfs_inode {
>>
Hi Josef,
On fri, 18 May 2012 15:01:05 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h b/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h
> index 9b9b15f..492c74f 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h
> @@ -57,9 +57,6 @@ struct btrfs_inode {
> /* used to order data wrt m
Hi Josef,
now I get
[ 2081.142669] couldn't find orphan item for 2039, nlink 1, root 269,
root being deleted no
-martin
Am 18.05.2012 21:01, schrieb Josef Bacik:
*sigh* ok try this, hopefully it will point me in the right direction. Thanks,
[ 126.389847] Btrfs loaded
[ 126.390284] devi
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 07:24:25PM +0200, Martin Mailand wrote:
> Hi Josef,
> there was one line before the bug.
>
> [ 995.725105] couldn't find orphan item for 524
>
>
*sigh* ok try this, hopefully it will point me in the right direction. Thanks,
Josef
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h
Hi Josef,
there was one line before the bug.
[ 995.725105] couldn't find orphan item for 524
Am 18.05.2012 16:48, schrieb Josef Bacik:
Ok hopefully this will print something out that makes sense. Thanks,
-martin
[ 241.754693] Btrfs loaded
[ 241.755148] device fsid 43c4ebd9-3824-4b07-a71
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 11:18:25PM +0200, Martin Mailand wrote:
> Hi Josef,
>
> I hit exact the same bug as Christian with your last patch.
>
Ok hopefully this will print something out that makes sense. Thanks,
Josef
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h b/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h
index 9b9b15f.
Hi Josef,
I hit exact the same bug as Christian with your last patch.
-martin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
2012/5/17 Josef Bacik :
> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 05:12:55PM +0200, Martin Mailand wrote:
>> Hi Josef,
>> no there was nothing above. Here the is another dmesg output.
>>
>
> Hrm ok give this a try and hopefully this is it, still couldn't reproduce.
> Thanks,
>
> Josef
Well, I hate to say it, but
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 05:12:55PM +0200, Martin Mailand wrote:
> Hi Josef,
> no there was nothing above. Here the is another dmesg output.
>
Hrm ok give this a try and hopefully this is it, still couldn't reproduce.
Thanks,
Josef
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h b/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h
ind
Hi Josef,
no there was nothing above. Here the is another dmesg output.
Was there anything above those messages? There should have been a WARN_ON() or
something. If not thats fine, I just need to know one way or the other so I can
figure out what to do next. Thanks,
Josef
-martin
[ 63.0
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:29:32PM +0200, Martin Mailand wrote:
> Hi Josef,
>
> somehow I still get the kernel Bug messages, I used your patch from
> the 16th against rc7.
>
Was there anything above those messages? There should have been a WARN_ON() or
something. If not thats fine, I just need
Hi Josef,
somehow I still get the kernel Bug messages, I used your patch from the
16th against rc7.
-martin
Am 16.05.2012 21:20, schrieb Josef Bacik:
Hrm ok so I finally got some time to try and debug it and let the test run a
good long while (5 hours almost) and I couldn't hit either the or
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:20:48AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 04:19:37PM +0200, Martin Mailand wrote:
> > Hi Josef,
> >
> > Am 11.05.2012 21:16, schrieb Josef Bacik:
> > >Heh duh, sorry, try this one instead. Thanks,
> >
> > With this patch I got this Bug:
>
> Yeah Chri
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 04:19:37PM +0200, Martin Mailand wrote:
> Hi Josef,
>
> Am 11.05.2012 21:16, schrieb Josef Bacik:
> >Heh duh, sorry, try this one instead. Thanks,
>
> With this patch I got this Bug:
Yeah Christian reported the same thing on Friday. I'm going to work on a patch
and actu
Hi Josef,
Am 11.05.2012 21:16, schrieb Josef Bacik:
Heh duh, sorry, try this one instead. Thanks,
With this patch I got this Bug:
[ 8233.828722] [ cut here ]
[ 8233.828737] kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/inode.c:2217!
[ 8233.828746] invalid opcode: [#1] SMP
[ 8233.828761
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 08:33:34PM +0200, Martin Mailand wrote:
> Hi Josef,
>
> Am 11.05.2012 15:31, schrieb Josef Bacik:
> >That previous patch was against btrfs-next, this patch is against 3.4-rc6 if
> >you
> >are on mainline. Thanks,
>
> I tried your patch against mainline, after a few minut
Hi Josef,
Am 11.05.2012 15:31, schrieb Josef Bacik:
That previous patch was against btrfs-next, this patch is against 3.4-rc6 if you
are on mainline. Thanks,
I tried your patch against mainline, after a few minutes I hit this bug.
[ 1078.523655] [ cut here ]
[ 1078.52
2012/5/10 Josef Bacik :
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 01:02:08PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
>> Am 24. April 2012 18:26 schrieb Sage Weil :
>> > On Tue, 24 Apr 2012, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:09:34PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
>> >> > After running ceph on XFS for som
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 04:35:23PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 01:02:08PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
> > Am 24. April 2012 18:26 schrieb Sage Weil :
> > > On Tue, 24 Apr 2012, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > >> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:09:34PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
>
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 01:02:08PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
> Am 24. April 2012 18:26 schrieb Sage Weil :
> > On Tue, 24 Apr 2012, Josef Bacik wrote:
> >> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:09:34PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
> >> > After running ceph on XFS for some time, I decided to try btrfs
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 01:02:08PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
> Am 24. April 2012 18:26 schrieb Sage Weil :
> > On Tue, 24 Apr 2012, Josef Bacik wrote:
> >> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:09:34PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
> >> > After running ceph on XFS for some time, I decided to try btrfs
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 10:24:16PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
> 2012/5/3 Josef Bacik :
> > On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 09:38:27AM -0700, Josh Durgin wrote:
> >> On Thu, 3 May 2012 11:20:53 -0400, Josef Bacik
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 08:17:43AM -0700, Josh Durgin wrote:
> >> >
>
2012/5/3 Josef Bacik :
> On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 09:38:27AM -0700, Josh Durgin wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 May 2012 11:20:53 -0400, Josef Bacik
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 08:17:43AM -0700, Josh Durgin wrote:
>> >
>> > Yeah all that was in the right place, I rebooted and I magically
>> > stoppe
On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 09:38:27AM -0700, Josh Durgin wrote:
> On Thu, 3 May 2012 11:20:53 -0400, Josef Bacik
> wrote:
> > On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 08:17:43AM -0700, Josh Durgin wrote:
> >> On Thu, 3 May 2012 10:13:55 -0400, Josef Bacik
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 01:02:08PM +0200,
On Thu, 3 May 2012 10:13:55 -0400, Josef Bacik
wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 01:02:08PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
>> Am 24. April 2012 18:26 schrieb Sage Weil :
>> > On Tue, 24 Apr 2012, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:09:34PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
>> >> > Af
On Thu, 3 May 2012 11:20:53 -0400, Josef Bacik
wrote:
> On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 08:17:43AM -0700, Josh Durgin wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 May 2012 10:13:55 -0400, Josef Bacik
>> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 01:02:08PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
>> >> Am 24. April 2012 18:26 schrieb Sage Weil
On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 08:17:43AM -0700, Josh Durgin wrote:
> On Thu, 3 May 2012 10:13:55 -0400, Josef Bacik
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 01:02:08PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
> >> Am 24. April 2012 18:26 schrieb Sage Weil :
> >> > On Tue, 24 Apr 2012, Josef Bacik wrote:
> >> >> On F
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 01:02:08PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
> Am 24. April 2012 18:26 schrieb Sage Weil :
> > On Tue, 24 Apr 2012, Josef Bacik wrote:
> >> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:09:34PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
> >> > After running ceph on XFS for some time, I decided to try btrfs
2012/4/29 tsuna :
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Christian Brunner
> wrote:
>> After running ceph on XFS for some time, I decided to try btrfs again.
>> Performance with the current "for-linux-min" branch and big metadata
>> is much better.
>
> I've heard that although performance from btrfs i
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Christian Brunner
wrote:
> After running ceph on XFS for some time, I decided to try btrfs again.
> Performance with the current "for-linux-min" branch and big metadata
> is much better.
I've heard that although performance from btrfs is better at first, it
degrad
Am 24. April 2012 18:26 schrieb Sage Weil :
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:09:34PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
>> > After running ceph on XFS for some time, I decided to try btrfs again.
>> > Performance with the current "for-linux-min" branch and big me
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 01:33:44PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 09:26:15AM -0700, Sage Weil wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Apr 2012, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:09:34PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
> > > > After running ceph on XFS for some time, I decided t
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 09:26:15AM -0700, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:09:34PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
> > > After running ceph on XFS for some time, I decided to try btrfs again.
> > > Performance with the current "for-linux-min"
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:09:34PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
> > After running ceph on XFS for some time, I decided to try btrfs again.
> > Performance with the current "for-linux-min" branch and big metadata
> > is much better. The only problem (?) I
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:09:34PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
> After running ceph on XFS for some time, I decided to try btrfs again.
> Performance with the current "for-linux-min" branch and big metadata
> is much better. The only problem (?) I'm still seeing is a warning
> that seems to occ
I decided to run the test over the weekend. The good news is, that the
system is still running without performance degradation. But in the
meantime I've got over 5000 WARNINGs of this kind:
[330700.043557] btrfs: block rsv returned -28
[330700.043559] [ cut here ]
[330700.0
After running ceph on XFS for some time, I decided to try btrfs again.
Performance with the current "for-linux-min" branch and big metadata
is much better. The only problem (?) I'm still seeing is a warning
that seems to occur from time to time:
[87703.784552] [ cut here ]
45 matches
Mail list logo
