Hi btrfs-team/-users,
I do observe a strange behavior upon booting of my openSUSE 12.1 system
( kernel 3.1.10-1.9-desktop; x86_64 ) with btrfsprogs-0.19-43.7.1.x86_64
utils installed:
The system has two btrfs-vols: root(sda7) home(sda8) and had been
created during system setup of openSUSE
auth d55b8112 subscribe linux-btrfshenrik.k...@origenis.de
attachment: henrik_kuhn.vcf
On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 12:02:34PM +0200, Henrik Kuhn wrote:
I do observe a strange behavior upon booting of my openSUSE 12.1 system (
kernel 3.1.10-1.9-desktop; x86_64 ) with btrfsprogs-0.19-43.7.1.x86_64 utils
installed:
If you're using a kernel shipped by your distro, please open a bug
On 05/02/2012 02:16 PM, David Sterba wrote:
On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 12:02:34PM +0200, Henrik Kuhn wrote:
I do observe a strange behavior upon booting of my openSUSE 12.1 system (
kernel 3.1.10-1.9-desktop; x86_64 ) with btrfsprogs-0.19-43.7.1.x86_64 utils
installed:
If you're using a kernel
Thanks for good comments.
Is the OP using Oracle Linux?
He didn't say. But he didn't say he WON'T be using oracle linux (or
other distro which supports btrfs) either. Plus the kernel can be
installed on top of RHEL/Centos 5 and 6, so he can easily choose
either the supported version, or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/02/2012 01:44 AM, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
I see the filesystem going readonly when run_clustered_refs
returns -ENOSPC [1], so it looks like we need something like:
--- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c @@
-2451,7
On 2 May 2012 22:01, Jeff Mahoney je...@suse.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/02/2012 01:44 AM, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
I see the filesystem going readonly when run_clustered_refs
returns -ENOSPC [1], so it looks like we need something like:
---
On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 02:40:29PM +0200, Hubert Kario wrote:
+static const char * const cmd_zero_dev_usage[] = {
+ btrfs device zero-superblock device [device ...],
FYI, this step is named 'clear superblock' in kernel code as done after the
device is removed, and I suggest to consider to
On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 04:28:43PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
I had prototyped a similar utility (in perl, so nothing for progs
inclusion for now)
attached.
david
#!/usr/bin/perl
# clear btrfs signature from a device
use Fcntl;
use constant BTRFS_SUPER_INFO_OFFSET = 64 * 1024;
use constant
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 05:42:05PM +0200, Marco L. Crociani wrote:
Apr 19 17:38:41 evo kernel: [ 347.661915] Call Trace:
Apr 19 17:38:41 evo kernel: [ 347.661964] [a00b76ac]
btrfs_ioctl_dev_info+0x15c/0x1a0 [btrfs]
Apr 19 17:38:41 evo kernel: [ 347.662013] [a00ba9b1]
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 4:54 PM, David Sterba d...@jikos.cz wrote:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 05:42:05PM +0200, Marco L. Crociani wrote:
Apr 19 17:38:41 evo kernel: [ 347.661915] Call Trace:
Apr 19 17:38:41 evo kernel: [ 347.661964] [a00b76ac]
btrfs_ioctl_dev_info+0x15c/0x1a0
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 03:01:04PM +0200, Marco L. Crociani wrote:
./btrfs device delete missing /mnt/sda3
ERROR: error removing the device 'missing' - Input/output error
Apr 30 13:17:57 evo kernel: [ 108.866205] btrfs: allowing degraded mounts
Apr 30 13:17:57 evo kernel: [ 108.866214]
On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 04:59:03PM +0200, Marco L. Crociani wrote:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 05:42:05PM +0200, Marco L. Crociani wrote:
Apr 19 17:38:41 evo kernel: [ 347.661964] [a00b76ac]
btrfs_ioctl_dev_info+0x15c/0x1a0 [btrfs]
[...]
I was on 3.4-rc5!
You really saw this crash
On Wednesday 02 of May 2012 16:28:43 David Sterba wrote:
On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 02:40:29PM +0200, Hubert Kario wrote:
+static const char * const cmd_zero_dev_usage[] = {
+ btrfs device zero-superblock device [device ...],
FYI, this step is named 'clear superblock' in kernel code as done
Is there anything I missed for steps to reproduce it?
All the story is in previous mails.
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/16829
http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org/msg15949.html
First mail is missing from mail-archive...
Summary:
Some damaged sectors on
On 5/2/2012 5:22 PM, David Sterba wrote:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 03:01:04PM +0200, Marco L. Crociani wrote:
./btrfs device delete missing /mnt/sda3
ERROR: error removing the device 'missing' - Input/output error
Apr 30 13:17:57 evo kernel: [ 108.866205] btrfs: allowing degraded mounts
Apr
Oops, please scratch the attachment of the mail before, that patch is
not yet finished. I forgot to remove it before hitting the send button :(
Sorry.
I'll send a patch tomorrow to prevent the scrub crash in this situation.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs
On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 06:42:16PM +0200, Hubert Kario wrote:
A similar function in mdadm is called zero superblock so I just re used the
name (according to the principle of least surprise). Users, even admins,
generally don't read kernel code...
I intended to point out that the
We are checking delalloc to see if it is ok to update the i_size. There are
2 cases it stops us from updating
1) If there is delalloc between our current disk_i_size and this ordered
extent
2) If there is delalloc between our current ordered extent and the next
ordered extent
These tests are
We are checking delalloc to see if it is ok to update the i_size. There are
2 cases it stops us from updating
1) If there is delalloc between our current disk_i_size and this ordered
extent
2) If there is delalloc between our current ordered extent and the next
ordered extent
These tests are
We noticed that the ordered extent completion doesn't really rely on having
a page and that it could be done independantly of ending the writeback on a
page. This patch makes us not do the threaded endio stuff for normal
buffered writes and direct writes so we can end page writeback as soon as
Martin posted on Wed, 02 May 2012 15:00:59 +0100 as excerpted:
Multiple pairs of HDD paired with SSD on md RAID 1 mirror is a thought
with ext4...
FWIW, I was looking at disk upgrades for my (much different use case)
home workstation a few days ago, and the thought of raid1 across SSD and
Il 02/05/2012 20:41, Duncan ha scritto:
Martin posted on Wed, 02 May 2012 15:00:59 +0100 as excerpted:
Multiple pairs of HDD paired with SSD on md RAID 1 mirror is a thought
with ext4...
FWIW, I was looking at disk upgrades for my (much different use case)
home workstation a few days ago, and
viv...@gmail.com posted on Thu, 03 May 2012 01:54:01 +0200 as excerpted:
Il 02/05/2012 20:41, Duncan ha scritto:
Martin posted on Wed, 02 May 2012 15:00:59 +0100 as excerpted:
Multiple pairs of HDD paired with SSD on md RAID 1 mirror is a
thought with ext4...
FWIW, I was looking at disk
24 matches
Mail list logo
