Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Add a new mount option to grow the FS to the limit of the device

2010-08-04 Thread Donggeun Kim
Chris Mason wrote: On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 05:42:00PM +0900, Donggeun Kim wrote: In some cases, resizing a file system to the maximum device size is required. When flashing a file system image to a block device, the file system does not fit into the block device's size. Currently, executing

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Add a new mount option to grow the FS to the limit of the device

2010-08-04 Thread Chris Mason
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 08:34:43PM +0900, Donggeun Kim wrote: Chris Mason wrote: On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 05:42:00PM +0900, Donggeun Kim wrote: In some cases, resizing a file system to the maximum device size is required. When flashing a file system image to a block device, the file

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Add a new mount option to grow the FS to the limit of the device

2010-08-04 Thread Kyungmin Park
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Chris Mason chris.ma...@oracle.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 08:34:43PM +0900, Donggeun Kim wrote: Chris Mason wrote: On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 05:42:00PM +0900, Donggeun Kim wrote: In some cases, resizing a file system to the maximum device size is

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Add a new mount option to grow the FS to the limit of the device

2010-08-04 Thread Chris Mason
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 10:45:00PM +0900, Kyungmin Park wrote: On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Chris Mason chris.ma...@oracle.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 08:34:43PM +0900, Donggeun Kim wrote: Chris Mason wrote: On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 05:42:00PM +0900, Donggeun Kim wrote: In

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Add a new mount option to grow the FS to the limit of the device

2010-08-04 Thread Kyungmin Park
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Chris Mason chris.ma...@oracle.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 10:45:00PM +0900, Kyungmin Park wrote: On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Chris Mason chris.ma...@oracle.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 08:34:43PM +0900, Donggeun Kim wrote: Chris Mason

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Add a new mount option to grow the FS to the limit of the device

2010-08-04 Thread Chris Mason
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 10:56:18PM +0900, Kyungmin Park wrote: On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Chris Mason chris.ma...@oracle.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 10:45:00PM +0900, Kyungmin Park wrote: On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Chris Mason chris.ma...@oracle.com wrote: On Wed, Aug

btrfs-images

2010-08-04 Thread Michael Niederle
Hi! I also wanted to use btrfs-images, but changed my mind when I got troubles with several btrfs file systems derived from the same image. If more than one of these file system were physically connected at the same time, mounting one of them resulted in a mess. I think they all used the same

flush-btrfs-1 doing 1MiB/s (avg) writing on idle system??

2010-08-04 Thread marcel partap
Dear BTRFS devs, still trying to find the cause for https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12309 i stumbled over the strange fact that the flush-btrfs-1 thread is writing about 1MiBps constantly onto my root fs, even after turning off io-prone BOINC and NTOP.. there are other threads doing

Re: volume broken? btrfsck fails

2010-08-04 Thread Thomas Kuther
On Di, 06.07.10 20:16 Chris Mason chris.ma...@oracle.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 03:15:04PM -0700, Yee-Ting Li wrote: Hi, i think my btrfs volume is hosed it mounts okay, but iostat shows /dev/sdg on 100% load. dmesg shows lots of 'parent transid verify failed on x wanted y

Re: volume broken? btrfsck fails

2010-08-04 Thread Chris Mason
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 08:48:40PM +0200, Thomas Kuther wrote: On Di, 06.07.10 20:16 Chris Mason chris.ma...@oracle.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 03:15:04PM -0700, Yee-Ting Li wrote: Hi, i think my btrfs volume is hosed it mounts okay, but iostat shows /dev/sdg on 100%

Re: A reproducible crush of mounting a subvolume

2010-08-04 Thread wks1986
I found this in the wiki page https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Getting_started : Note: to be mounted the subvolume or snapshot have to be in the root of the btrfs filesystem. But is this an intentional requirement or just a known bug? Thanks Kunshan Wang 2010/8/4 wks1986