On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 01:43:53PM +, Duncan wrote:
I could have sworn btrfs property -t subvolume can get/set that snapshot
bit. I know I saw the discussion and I think patch for it go by, but
again, as I don't use them, I haven't tracked closely enough to see if it
ever got in.
Hugo Mills posted on Thu, 09 Jul 2015 13:54:48 + as excerpted:
On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 01:43:53PM +, Duncan wrote:
I could have sworn btrfs property -t subvolume can get/set that
snapshot bit. I know I saw the discussion and I think patch for it go
by, but again, as I don't use them,
On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 08:48:00 -0400
Austin S Hemmelgarn ahferro...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2015-07-09 08:41, Sander wrote:
Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote (ao):
What's wrong with btrfs subvolume snapshot?
Well, personally I would say the fact that once something is tagged as
a snapshot, you can't
On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 02:26:55PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
Hi!
I see Alex, the developer of btrbk posted here once about btrfs send and
receive, but well any other users of btrbk¹? What are your experiences?
I consider switching to it from my home grown rsync based backup script
On Thursday 09 July 2015 14:26:55 you wrote:
Well I may try it for one of my BTRFS volumes in addition to the rsync
backup for now. I would like to give all options on command line, but well,
maybe it can completely replace my current script if I put everything in its
configuration.
Any
On Fri, Jul 03, 2015 at 10:22:08PM +0100, fdman...@kernel.org wrote:
From: Filipe Manana fdman...@suse.com
Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
Fixes: 50d9aa99bd35 (Btrfs: make sure logged extents complete in the current
transaction V3
Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana fdman...@suse.com
... now for the
On Fri, Jul 03, 2015 at 08:46:40PM +0100, fdman...@kernel.org wrote:
From: Filipe Manana fdman...@suse.com
...
Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
Fixes: 50d9aa99bd35 (Btrfs: make sure logged extents complete in the current
transaction V3
Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana fdman...@suse.com
Good catch
On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 08:48:00AM -0400, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2015-07-09 08:41, Sander wrote:
Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote (ao):
What's wrong with btrfs subvolume snapshot?
Well, personally I would say the fact that once something is tagged as
a snapshot, you can't change it to a
Chris Murphy wrote on 2015/07/09 18:45 -0600:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Qu Wenruo quwen...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
One of my patch addressed a problem that a converted btrfs can't pass
btrfsck.
Not sure if that is the cause, but if you can try btrfs-progs v3.19.1, the
one without my
Marc,
I thought I'd yours a try, and I'm probably embarassing myself here
but I'm running in to this issue. Centos 7.
[root@san01 tank]# ./btrfs-subvolume-backup store /mnt2/backups
./btrfs-subvolume-backup: line 177: shlock: command not found
/var/run/btrfs-subvolume-backup held for
From: Zhao Lei zhao...@cn.fujitsu.com
These variables are not used from introduced version , remove them.
Signed-off-by: Zhao Lei zhao...@cn.fujitsu.com
---
fs/btrfs/scrub.c | 9 ++---
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/scrub.c b/fs/btrfs/scrub.c
index
One of my 3TB drives failed (not recognized anymore) recently so I got two new
4TB drives, I mounted the fs with -o degraded and used btrfs dev add to add
the new drives then I did btrfs dev del missing.
Now delete missing always returns an error
ERROR: error removing the device 'missing' -
From: Zhao Lei zhao...@cn.fujitsu.com
Add scrub support for partial csum.
The only challenge is that, scrub is done in unit of bio(or page size
yet), but partial csum is done in unit of 1/8 of nodesize.
So here a new function scrub_check_node_checksum and a new tree block
csum check loop is
Introduce the new partial csum mechanism for tree block.
[Old tree block csum]
0 4 8121620242832
-
|csum | unused, all 0 |
-
Csum is the crc32
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 5:34 PM, conc...@web.de wrote:
Hi,
I've noticed that a single device partition was using metadata.single and
system.single instead of metadata.dup and system.dup. All tests to force
conversion to dup failed.
Try only -mconvert=dup and without -f flag and see if it
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Qu Wenruo quwen...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
One of my patch addressed a problem that a converted btrfs can't pass
btrfsck.
Not sure if that is the cause, but if you can try btrfs-progs v3.19.1, the
one without my btrfs-progs patches and some other newer convert
... and I just found your other block about stealing shlock out of inn.
Officially embarassed!
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Donald Pearson
donaldwhpear...@gmail.com wrote:
Marc,
I thought I'd yours a try, and I'm probably embarassing myself here
but I'm running in to this issue. Centos
In my research, I've found btrbk and btrfs-sxbackup certainly to be
the leading contenders in terms of feature completeness. sanoid [1]
will be another interesting possibility once btrfs compatibility is
added (currently zfs only).
I just wish I'd discovered all these before I went to all the
This patchset will add partial csum support for btrfs.
Partial csum will take full advantage of the 32 bytes csum space inside
the tree block, while still maintain backward compatibility on old
kernels.
The overall idea is like the following on 16K leaf:
[Old tree block csum]
0 4 812
The code using 'ordered_extent_flush_mutex' mutex has removed by below
commit.
- 8d875f95da43c6a8f18f77869f2ef26e9594fecc
btrfs: disable strict file flushes for renames and truncates
But the mutex still lives in struct 'btrfs_fs_info'.
So, this patch removes the mutex from struct
Slightly off topic
does these bugs exist in systems that converted from ext4 to btrfs
using kernel 3.13 and then upgraded to kernel 4.1 ?
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 4:09 AM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 8:08 PM, Qu Wenruo quwen...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
A
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 8:20 AM, james harvey jamespharve...@gmail.com wrote:
Request for new btrfs subvolume subcommand:
clone or fork [-i qgroupid] source [dest]name
Create a subvolume name in dest, which is a clone or fork of source.
If dest is not given, subvolume name will be
On 2015-07-08 15:06, Donald Pearson wrote:
I wouldn't use dd.
I would use recover to get the data if at all possible, then you can
experiment with try to fix the degraded condition live. If you have
any chance of getting data from the pool, you reduce that chance every
time you make a change.
On 2015-07-08 18:16, Donald Pearson wrote:
Basically I wouldn't trust the drive that's already showing signs of
failure to survive a dd. It isn't completely full, so the recover is
less load. That's just the way I see it. But I see your point of
trying to get drive images now to hedge against
On 2015-07-09 02:22, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 8:20 AM, james harvey jamespharve...@gmail.com wrote:
Request for new btrfs subvolume subcommand:
clone or fork [-i qgroupid] source [dest]name
Create a subvolume name in dest, which is a clone or fork of source.
If
Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote (ao):
On 2015-07-09 08:41, Sander wrote:
Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote (ao):
What's wrong with btrfs subvolume snapshot?
Well, personally I would say the fact that once something is tagged as
a snapshot, you can't change it to a regular subvolume without doing a
Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote (ao):
What's wrong with btrfs subvolume snapshot?
Well, personally I would say the fact that once something is tagged as
a snapshot, you can't change it to a regular subvolume without doing a
non-incremental send/receive.
A snapshot is a subvolume. There is no such
On 2015-07-09 08:41, Sander wrote:
Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote (ao):
What's wrong with btrfs subvolume snapshot?
Well, personally I would say the fact that once something is tagged as
a snapshot, you can't change it to a regular subvolume without doing a
non-incremental send/receive.
A
I was finally able to remove the missing device. I updated the bug
report, but in case anyone else has this problem I wanted to update
here as well.
I deleted all snapshot subvolumes on the pool (between 20 and 30), and
was able to delete the missing device then without issue. This took
two
On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 03:38:11PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven ge...@linux-m68k.org
Acked-by: David Sterba dste...@suse.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More
Austin S Hemmelgarn posted on Thu, 09 Jul 2015 08:48:00 -0400 as
excerpted:
On 2015-07-09 08:41, Sander wrote:
Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote (ao):
What's wrong with btrfs subvolume snapshot?
Well, personally I would say the fact that once something is tagged as
a snapshot, you can't change it
On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 10:44:51 -0700
Daniel Grimshaw grims...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
I am a high school student trying to become familiar with
Linux kernel development. The btrfs documentation in
Documentation/filesystems had a few typos and errors in
whitespace. This patch corrects both of
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 4:52 AM, Vytautas D vyt...@gmail.com wrote:
Slightly off topic
does these bugs exist in systems that converted from ext4 to btrfs using
kernel 3.13 and then upgraded to kernel 4.1 ?
I don't recall what btrfs-progs and kernel I last tested ext4
conversion with. I know
Hi,
I have a btrfs raid10 which is connected to a server hosting multiple virtual
machine. Does btrfs support connecting the same subvolumes of the same raid to
multiple virtual machines for concurrent read and write? The situation would
be the same as, say, mounting user homes from the same
Something I've noticed scrubbing two pools that I have, one is Raid6
and the other is Raid5.
The scrubbing goes along very slowly and I think it's because there is
always one disk that's operating differently than the rest. Which
disk changes.
Here is an iostat of the current scrub, and you can
On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 11:34:40PM +0200, Wolfgang Mader wrote:
Hi,
I have a btrfs raid10 which is connected to a server hosting
multiple virtual machine. Does btrfs support connecting the same
subvolumes of the same raid to multiple virtual machines for
concurrent read and write? The
On Thursday 09 July 2015 22:06:09 Hugo Mills wrote:
On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 11:34:40PM +0200, Wolfgang Mader wrote:
Hi,
I have a btrfs raid10 which is connected to a server hosting
multiple virtual machine. Does btrfs support connecting the same
subvolumes of the same raid to multiple
Hi,
I've noticed that a single device partition was using metadata.single and
system.single instead of metadata.dup and system.dup. All tests to force
conversion to dup failed.
Here is how to reproduce this with an image and some very simple BTRFS commands
(Debian stretch):
$ uname -a
Linux
From: Filipe Manana fdman...@suse.com
When we have an extent that got N references removed and N new references
added in the same transaction, we must run the insertion of the references
first because otherwise the last removed reference will remove the extent
item from the extent tree, resulting
From: Filipe Manana fdman...@suse.com
Regression test for adding and dropping an equal number of references
for file extents. Verify that if we drop N references for a file extent
and we add too N new references for that same file extent in the same
transaction, running the delayed references
wrote on 2015/07/09 15:50 +0100:
From: Filipe Manana fdman...@suse.com
When we have an extent that got N references removed and N new references
added in the same transaction, we must run the insertion of the references
first because otherwise the last removed reference will remove the
One of my patch addressed a problem that a converted btrfs can't pass
btrfsck.
Not sure if that is the cause, but if you can try btrfs-progs v3.19.1,
the one without my btrfs-progs patches and some other newer convert
related patches, and see the result?
I think this would at least provide
42 matches
Mail list logo
