Re: Re-mounting removable btrfs on different device

On 2018-09-06 11:32 PM, Duncan wrote: > Without the mentioned patches, the only way (other than reboot) is to > remove and reinsert the btrfs kernel module (assuming it's a module, not > built-in), thus forcing it to forget state. > > Of course if other critical mounted filesystems (such as

Re: Re-mounting removable btrfs on different device

Remi Gauvin posted on Thu, 06 Sep 2018 20:54:17 -0400 as excerpted: > I'm trying to use a BTRFS filesystem on a removable drive. > > The first drive drive was added to the system, it was /dev/sdb > > Files were added and device unmounted without error. > > But when I re-attach the drive, it

Re: Re: general protection fault in open_fs_devices

#syz test: git://g...@github.com:asj/btrfs-devel.git misc-next "git://g...@github.com:asj/btrfs-devel.git" does not look like a valid git repo address. On 06/06/2018 09:17 PM, syzbot wrote: Hello, syzbot found the following crash on: HEAD commit:    af6c5d5e01ad Merge branch

Re: Re: btrfs repair and zero-log doesn't seem to do anything

> IMHO there will be 2 alternative method to recover: > > 1) Btrfs restore >The safest method to recover files. >Although it may need a lot of space to restore recovered data. > > 2) Btrfs check --init-extent-tree >This will use fs tree to try to rebuild the extent tree. >I don't

Re: Re[4]: btrfs check "Couldn't open file system" after error in transaction.c

On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Hendrik Friedel wrote: > Hello, > > here the output of btrfsck: > Checking filesystem on /dev/sdd > UUID: a8af3832-48c7-4568-861f-e80380dd7e0b > checking extents > checking free space cache > checking fs root > checking csums > checking root

Re: Re[3]: btrfs check "Couldn't open file system" after error in transaction.c

On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Hendrik Friedel wrote: > Hello again, > > before overwriting the filesystem, some last questions: > >>> Maybe >>> take advantage of the fact it does read only and recreate it. You >>> could take a btrfs-image and btrfs-debug-tree first, >>

Re: Re[2]: btrfs check "Couldn't open file system" after error in transaction.c

Lost track of this...sorry. On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Hendrik Friedel wrote: > Hi Chris, > > thanks for your reply -especially on a Sunday. >>> >>> I have a filesystem (three disks with no raid) >> >> >> So it's data single *and* metadata single? >> > No: > Data,

Re: Re: [PATCH] btrfs-progs: add always option to restore's looping prompt

He Guys, i'm doing some restore right now. In fakt about 8TB. I saw Justin sending the patch below in 2014 adding the "all" option when hitting the looping promt. It would be nice to have this as command switch to, because if you have to recover the amount of data as i do atm, you probably get

Re: Re: unable to mount btrfs partition, please help :(

On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Patrick Tschackert wrote: > My raid is done with the scrub now, this is what i get: > > $ cat /sys/block/md0/md/mismatch_cnt > 311936608 I think this is an assembly problem. Read errors don't result in mismatch counts. An md mismatch count

RE: RE

Please confirm receipt of my previous mail..When can i call you -- 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

Re: Re: Re: Porting BTRFS to user space

21:27 (GMT+09:00) Title : Re: Re: Porting BTRFS to user space On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 12:03:29PM +, 인정식 wrote: Thank you for the advise. I am still wonder why there are same-name files in btrfs(kernel source) and btrfs-progs. They are quite many as follows. backref.{c, h} ctree

Re: Re: Porting BTRFS to user space

Thank you for the advise. I am still wonder why there are same-name files in btrfs(kernel source) and btrfs-progs. They are quite many as follows. backref.{c, h} ctree.{c, h} dir-item.c disk-io.{c, h} extent_io.{c, h} extent-tree.c file.c file-item.c

Re: Re: Porting BTRFS to user space

On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 12:03:29PM +, 인정식 wrote: Thank you for the advise. I am still wonder why there are same-name files in btrfs(kernel source) and btrfs-progs. They are quite many as follows. backref.{c, h} ctree.{c, h} dir-item.c disk-io.{c, h} extent_io.{c,

Re: Re: Porting BTRFS to user space

Thank you for the information. I just found that btrfs-progs includes several files that seem modified from btrfs kernel source. I am not sure exactly what they are. Web pages say libbtrfs is to provide interface for apps that use btrfs. Why should there be duplicated codes between kernel and

Re: Re-assembling a btrfs raid1 array

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 19/02/15 09:29, Bob Williams wrote: My system comprises 2 x 3TB hard drives, each partitioned into a 4GB swap, a 36GB /, and the rest for /home. / and /home are (were) then assembled into btrfs raid1 arrays, with both metadata and data being

Re: Re-assembling a btrfs raid1 array

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 19/02/15 10:06, Bob Williams wrote: On 19/02/15 09:29, Bob Williams wrote: My system comprises 2 x 3TB hard drives, [...] Whoops. I really meant to say: # btrfs device add -f /dev/sdg2 / # btrfs balance start -dconvert=raid1

Re: Re: What is the vision for btrfs fs repair?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10/11/2014 3:29 AM, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: On 10/10/2014 12:53 PM, Bob Marley wrote: If true, maybe the closest indication we'd get of btrfs stablity is the default enabling of autorecovery. No way! I wouldn't want a default like that.

Re: Re: BTRFS with more than two parities

Duncan posted on Tue, 21 Oct 2014 11:01:50 as excepted: Ronny Egner posted on Tue, 21 Oct 2014 06:28:34 + as excerpted: Dear All, i was wondering what happened with the patch posted by Andrea Mazzoleni back in Februrary 2014 (this Thread:

Re: Re: [v3.10.y][v3.11.y][v3.12.y][v3.13.y][v3.14.y][PATCH 1/1][V2] ALSA: usb-audio: Prevent printk ratelimiting from spamming kernel log while DEBUG not defined

On 06/18/2014 09:52 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote: On Wed, 2014-06-18 at 14:32 -0400, Joseph Salisbury wrote: From: Sander Eikelenboom li...@eikelenboom.it BugLink: http://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1319457 This (widely used) construction: if(printk_ratelimit()) dev_dbg() Causes the

Re: Re: lost with degraded RAID1

[Answer from Duncan, 1i5t5.duncan@DOMAIN.HIDDEN (Thanks for the try)] [AFAIK that shouldn't be the case. Degraded should allow the RW mount -- I know it did some kernels ago when I tried it then, and if it changed, it's news to me too, in which case I need to do some reevaluation here.] What I

Re: Re: compression btrfs

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 10:27:34AM -0600, yiletian wrote: Yes, I use compress-force=zlib for my partition. Consider this scenario. We first write a file with size of 256KB. Assume all data is compressed to 128KB size, btrfs create a extent item in extent-tree to record the 128KB disk

Re: Re: [PATCH 0/8] Set bi_rw when alloc bio before call bio_add_page.

[ Resending in plain text... sorry for the duplicate ] Hi, On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 08:55:59AM +0800, majianpeng wrote: On 2012-07-31 05:42 Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com Wrote: On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 03:14:28PM

Re: Re: [PATCH 0/8] Set bi_rw when alloc bio before call bio_add_page.

On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 08:55:59AM +0800, majianpeng wrote: On 2012-07-31 05:42 Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com Wrote: On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 03:14:28PM +0800, majianpeng wrote: When exec bio_alloc, the bi_rw is zero.But after calling bio_add_page, it will use bi_rw. Fox example, in

Re: Re: Two way mirror in BRTFS

Původní zpráva Od: Fajar A. Nugraha l...@fajar.net Předmět: Re: Two way mirror in BRTFS Datum: 30.12.2011 14:27:39 2011/12/30 Jaromir Zdrazil jaromir.zdra...@email.cz: Sorry fo the typo in the subject! Just to add, I

Re: Re: Two way mirror in BRTFS

2011/12/30 Jaromir Zdrazil jaromir.zdra...@email.cz: Just to add, I would like to see a two way mirror solution, but if it will not work now/is not implemnted yet, I would propably choose between drbd in asynchronous mode or make a some kind if incremental snapshot to a remote mapped disk

Re: Re: Two way mirror in BRTFS

You mean like zfs send -i? If yes, why not just use zfs? There's zfsonlinux project, with easy-to-install ppa for ubuntu. Or you could compile it manually. Thank you for your suggestion. As I know, there is not everything ported yet, and one of the missing important features I plan to use

Re: Re: Re: Two way mirror in BRTFS

Původní zpráva Od: Fajar A. Nugraha l...@fajar.net Předmět: Re: Re: Two way mirror in BRTFS Datum: 30.12.2011 15:34:02 2011/12/30 Jaromir Zdrazil jaromir.zdra...@email.cz: Just to add, I would like to see a two way mirror

Re: Re: Two way mirror in BRTFS

For btrfs bugs are still fixed on a daily basis, and some reports of people with corrupted and unrecoverable filesystems. I don't know that there's been any actual unrecoverable filesystems recently; unmountable is by far the more common issue, and given that most sane people aren't putting

Re: Re: Two way mirror in BRTFS

For btrfs bugs are still fixed on a daily basis, and some reports of people with corrupted and unrecoverable filesystems. I don't know that there's been any actual unrecoverable filesystems recently; unmountable is by far the more common issue, and given that most sane people aren't putting

Re: Re: Re: Two way mirror in BRTFS

It seems I trust the web pages too much - in http://zfsonlinux.org/ is written that it does not ;O)) otherwise I would be using it already. From the website: Please keep in mind the current 0.5.2 stable release does not yet support a mountable filesystem. This functionality is currently

Re: Re: Re: Two way mirror in BRTFS

Původní zpráva Od: Niels de Carpentier ni...@decarpentier.com Předmět: Re: Re: Two way mirror in BRTFS Datum: 30.12.2011 16:15:51 You mean like zfs send -i? If yes, why not just use zfs? There's zfsonlinux project

Re: Re: Segmentation fault on partition mount

Please fix this bug (SEGFAULT), I can't access to my partition. Image of partition you can download here: http://narod.ru/disk/20400152000/btrfs_dump.z.html kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/tree-log.c:809! invalid opcode: [#1] PREEMPT SMP last sysfs file:

Re: Re: Segmentation fault on partition mount

Thanks all, I found the solution: http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org/msg04275.html 1). Apply patch to the kernel source 2). mount -t btrfs -o subvol=/dev/sda5,danger_del_log_tree /dev/sda5 /mount/point 3). mount as usual Please fix this bug (SEGFAULT), I can't access to my

Re: Re: Segmentation fault on partition mount

Bug message: Btrfs loaded device fsid 694983118c1865e7-ed2ca7537412e6ae devid 1 transid 73188 /dev/sda5 [ cut here ] kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/tree-log.c:809! invalid opcode: [#1] PREEMPT SMP last sysfs file:

Re: Re: [PATCH 09/18] btrfs: Fix return value of read_extent_buffer_pages() when lock page failed

Chris Mason wrote: On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 08:33:27PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote: From: Zhao Lei zhao...@cn.fujitsu.com read_extent_buffer_pages() should return error value instead of 0 when lock page failed, we fix this problem. [ Thanks for all of these patches! ] This isn't strictly an IO

Re: Re: [PATCH 05/18] btrfs: Take num_copies out of loop for btree_read_extent_buffer_pages()

Chris Mason wrote: On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 08:30:17PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote: From: Zhao Lei zhao...@cn.fujitsu.com num_copies's value is not changed in this function, and it is not necessary to calculate its value multi-times. It is true that we don't need to calculate this multiple times,

Re: Re: [PATCH 01/18] btrfs: Remove u64 conversion for PAGE_CACHE_SIZE

Chris Mason wrote: On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 08:27:26PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote: From: Zhao Lei zhao...@cn.fujitsu.com We don't need to convert PAGE_CACHE_SIZE to u64 in bit operation. For code like this: u64 size = (some number that doesn't fit in 32 bits) if (size (PAGE_CACHE_SIZE -

Re: Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Simplify offset calculation method for ctree.h

2009/12/18 Zhaolei zhao...@cn.fujitsu.com: sniper wrote: No, many pointers in btrfs function arguments are not pointing to an absolute address, but relative to the start address of extent. Take following function as example, argument inode_item is an offset value to the beginning of leaf. So

Re: Re: Kernel oops after compile error

Hi YZ, hi Chris, I tried the whole build process on Kubuntu Hardy Heron (kernel 2.6.24-19-generic) and there ist was OK, so I think it has something to do with the difference in include of kernel-headers-2.6.22-15 on Gutsy... Unfortunately new release leads to same error... But for testing

Re: Re: Kernel oops after compile error

Chris Mason asked Marcel Runte: But, recent versions of Btrfs should be doing the right thing. Which version are you running? Hi Chris, I pulled it from here: http://www.kernel.org/hg/index.cgi/btrfs/kernel/ with latest changeset: