I'm running into a problem with the btrfs-cleaner thread becoming
blocked on xfstests 068.
The test locks up indefinitely without completing (normally it
finished in about 45 seconds on my test box).
I've replicated the issue on 3.10.0_rc5 and the for-linus branch of 3.9.0.
I ran a git bisect
There's been a parallel effort to incorporate a general set of lz4
patches in the kernel.
I see these patches are currently queued up in the linux-next tree, so
we may see them in the 3.11 kernel.
It looks like lz4 and lz4hc will be provided.
So, instead of btrfs having it's own implementation
I'm hitting a btrfs Kernel BUG running a snapshot stress script with
linux-3.11.0-rc5.
I'm running with lzo compression, autodefrag, and the partition is
formated with 16k leafsize/inodesize.
[ 72.170431] device fsid 8a6be667-d041-4367-80f7-e4cb42356e85 devid
1 transid 4 /dev/sda7
[
Let me work on making that script more portable, and hopefully quicker
to reproduce.
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Josef Bacik jba...@fusionio.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 11:06:27PM -0500, Mitch Harder wrote:
I'm hitting a btrfs Kernel BUG running a snapshot stress script with
linux
I'm running into a curious problem.
In the process of making my script portable, I am breaking the ability
to replicate the error.
I'm trying to isolate the aspect of my local script that is triggering
the error. No firm insights yet.
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Mitch Harder
mitch.har
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Nicholas Lee em...@nickle.es wrote:
[ 45.914275] [ cut here ]
[ 45.914406] kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/volumes.c:4417!
[ 45.914489] invalid opcode: [#1] PREEMPT SMP
I can't say if this will fix your problem or not, but the 3.10.x
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 3:48 AM, Stefan Behrens
sbehr...@giantdisaster.de wrote:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 08:44:55 -0500, Mitch Harder wrote:
I've had a hard time assembling a portable reproducer for this issue.
I discovered that my reproducer was highly dependent on a local
archive of out-of-date
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 4:03 AM, Miao Xie mi...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
On fri, 23 Aug 2013 10:34:42 +0200, Stefan Behrens wrote:
Mitch Harder noticed that the patch 3c64a1a mentioned in the subject
line was causing a kernel BUG() on snapshot deletion.
The patch was wrong. It did not handle
On a single disk btrfs setup, such as for a desktop computer, what are
the implecations of creating your btrfs partition with '-m single'?
At first, I assumed I would want a single disk desktop setup to be
configured as 'single'. But that may not be the case for metadata.
I see that the default
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 12:27 PM, jim owens jow...@hp.com wrote:
Mitch Harder wrote:
On a single disk btrfs setup, such as for a desktop computer, what are
the implecations of creating your btrfs partition with '-m single'?
At first, I assumed I would want a single disk desktop setup
2010/12/29 Miao Xie mi...@cn.fujitsu.com:
Hello, Chris
I have a bunch of random fixes of the space management in
git://repo.or.cz/linux-btrfs-devel.git space-manage
They are the ENOSPC fixes, as well as fixes for df command.
The first one and the last one fixed the wrong free space
2011/1/5 Miao Xie mi...@cn.fujitsu.com:
Hello, Chris
I have a bunch of random fixes of the space management in
git://repo.or.cz/linux-btrfs-devel.git space-manage
They are the ENOSPC fixes, as well as fixes for df command.
The first one and the last one fixed the wrong free space
Defragmentation is not working when a directory is supplied as the
argument. When a file name is supplied as the argument,
defragmentation works well.
This can be demonstrated as follows:
# mount /dev/sdb2 /mnt/btrfs
# cd /mnt/btrfs/
# cp /usr/src/linux/fs/btrfs/zlib.c .(any suitable file
I'm encountering premature ENOSPC issues recently where my Btrfs
testing partition will either prematurely return an ENOSPC, or lock up
the operations trying to access the partition.
I have bisected the problem to this commit:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 07:21:47AM -0600, Mitch Harder wrote:
I'm encountering premature ENOSPC issues recently where my Btrfs
testing partition will either prematurely return an ENOSPC, or lock up
the operations trying
2011/2/24 Maria Wikström ma...@ponstudios.se:
mån 2011-02-21 klockan 09:51 +0800 skrev Zhong, Xin:
The backtrace in your attachment looks like a known bug of 2.6.37 which have
already been fixed in 2.6.38. I have no idea why latest btrfs still hang in
your environment if there's no debug
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Chris Mason chris.ma...@oracle.com wrote:
Excerpts from Mitch Harder's message of 2011-02-24 10:55:15 -0500:
2011/2/24 Maria Wikström ma...@ponstudios.se:
mån 2011-02-21 klockan 09:51 +0800 skrev Zhong, Xin:
The backtrace in your attachment looks like a
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Chris Mason chris.ma...@oracle.com wrote:
Excerpts from Mitch Harder's message of 2011-02-24 11:03:07 -0500:
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Chris Mason chris.ma...@oracle.com wrote:
Excerpts from Mitch Harder's message of 2011-02-24 10:55:15 -0500:
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Mitch Harder
mitch.har...@sabayonlinux.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Mitch Harder
mitch.har...@sabayonlinux.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Chris Mason chris.ma...@oracle.com wrote:
Excerpts from Mitch Harder's message of 2011-02-24
2011/2/28 Maria Wikström ma...@ponstudios.se:
mån 2011-02-28 klockan 11:10 -0500 skrev Josef Bacik:
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 11:13:59AM +0100, Johannes Hirte wrote:
On Monday 28 February 2011 02:46:05 Chris Mason wrote:
Excerpts from Mitch Harder's message of 2011-02-25 13:43:37 -0500:
2011/2/28 Mitch Harder mitch.har...@sabayonlinux.org:
2011/2/28 Maria Wikström ma...@ponstudios.se:
mån 2011-02-28 klockan 11:10 -0500 skrev Josef Bacik:
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 11:13:59AM +0100, Johannes Hirte wrote:
On Monday 28 February 2011 02:46:05 Chris Mason wrote:
Excerpts from
2011/2/28 Mitch Harder mitch.har...@sabayonlinux.org:
2011/2/28 Mitch Harder mitch.har...@sabayonlinux.org:
2011/2/28 Maria Wikström ma...@ponstudios.se:
mån 2011-02-28 klockan 11:10 -0500 skrev Josef Bacik:
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 11:13:59AM +0100, Johannes Hirte wrote:
On Monday 28
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 4:14 AM, Zhong, Xin xin.zh...@intel.com wrote:
Is your system running out of memory or is there any other thread like
flush-btrfs competing for the same page?
There's no sign of memory pressure. Although I only have 1 GB in this
box, I'm still show ~1/2 GB RAM free
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 5:56 AM, Zhong, Xin xin.zh...@intel.com wrote:
Hi Mitch,
I suspect there's a lock contention between flush-btrfs
(lock_dellalloc_pages) and btrfs_file_aio_write. However I can not recreate
it locally. Could you please try below patch? Thanks!
diff --git
2011/3/1 Xin Zhong thierryzh...@hotmail.com:
Hi, Mitch
I think you can config ftrace to just trace function calls of btrfs.ko which
will save a lot of trace buffer space. See below command:
#echo ':mod:btrfs' /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/set_ftrace_filterAnd please
send out the full ftrace
2011/3/4 Xin Zhong thierryzh...@hotmail.com:
It works well for me too.
From: chris.ma...@oracle.com
To: chris.ma...@oracle.com
CC: xin.zh...@intel.com; mitch.har...@sabayonlinux.org;
thierryzh...@hotmail.com; linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject:
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Mitch Harder
mitch.har...@sabayonlinux.org wrote:
2011/3/4 Xin Zhong thierryzh...@hotmail.com:
It works well for me too.
From: chris.ma...@oracle.com
To: chris.ma...@oracle.com
CC: xin.zh...@intel.com; mitch.har
2011/3/4 Xin Zhong thierryzh...@hotmail.com:
So it works well now with the two patches from Chris on your system. Am I
right?
No.
I am getting errors building gcc-4.4.5 with the two patches from Chris.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a
I've constructed a test patch that is currently addressing all the
issues on my system.
The portion of Openmotif that was having issues with page faults works
correctly with this patch, and gcc-4.4.5 builds without issue.
I extracted only the portion of the first patch that corrects the
handling
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 8:41 PM, Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 10:42:46AM +0800, Zhong, Xin wrote:
Where can I find your patch? Thanks!
It's in my btrfs-work git tree, it's based on the latest git pull from linus
so
you can just pull it onto a linus tree and
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Chris Mason chris.ma...@oracle.com wrote:
Excerpts from Chris Mason's message of 2011-03-06 13:00:27 -0500:
Excerpts from Mitch Harder's message of 2011-03-05 11:50:14 -0500:
I've constructed a test patch that is currently addressing all the
issues on my
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Chris Mason chris.ma...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Everyone,
The master branch of the btrfs-unstable tree has three shiny new
commits, which fix some important bugs in file_write and fiemap.
These are not yet pushed to Linus but the plan is to send them out
before
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Ilya Dryomov idryo...@gmail.com wrote:
Get rid of FIXME comment. Uuids from dmesg are now the same as uuids
given by btrfs-progs.
Signed-off-by: Ilya Dryomov idryo...@gmail.com
---
fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 8 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 6
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com wrote:
I noticed a huge problem with the free space cache that was presenting as an
early ENOSPC. Turns out when writing the free space cache out I forgot to
take
into account pinned extents and more importantly clusters. This
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Chris Mason chris.ma...@oracle.com wrote:
Excerpts from John Wyzer's message of 2011-04-29 10:46:08 -0400:
Currently on
commit 7cf96da3ec7ca225acf4f284b0e904a1f5f98821
Author: Tsutomu Itoh t-i...@jp.fujitsu.com
Date: Mon Apr 25 19:43:53 2011 -0400
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 3:40 PM, John Wyzer john.wy...@gmx.de wrote:
If you just want to see your fragmentation you can use the 'filefrag'
program from e2fsprogs:
# for file in $(find PATH/TO/BTRFS/VOL/ -type f); do filefrag
${file}; done | sort -n -k 2 | less
Hmm.
Tried it and it gives
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 8:03 AM, Bernhard Schmidt be...@birkenwald.de wrote:
Hi,
Ok, looks like we could be doing a little better job when compression is
on to build out a bigger extent. This shouldn't be causing trouble on
an ssd at all but on your rotating disk it'll be slightly slower.
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Daniel J Blueman
daniel.blue...@gmail.com wrote:
It does seem the case generally; on 2.6.39-rc5, writing to a fresh
filesystem using rsync with BTRFS compression enabled, 128KB extents
seem very common [1] (filefrag inconsistency noted).
Defragmenting with
In recent thread on the list (see: abysmal performance), there
were some questions regarding why Btrfs seems to break up compressed files
into 32 block (128KB) chunks.
This is done for two reasons:
(1) Ease the RAM required when spreading compression across several CPUs.
(2) Make sure the
The size of relocated compressed extents was limited to 128K.
This limit is put in place to ease the RAM required when spreading
compression across several CPUs, and to make sure the amount
of IO required to do a random read is reasonably small.
Increase this limit to 512K.
---
The size of compressed extents was limited to 128K, which
leads to fragmentation of the extents (although the extents
themselves may still be located contiguously). This limit is
put in place to ease the RAM required when spreading compression
across several CPUs, and to make sure the amount of
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 12:57 PM, David Sterba d...@jikos.cz wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 11:36:53AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
After merging the Linus' tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
ppc64_defconfig) produced these warnings:
fs/btrfs/sysfs.c:76:26: warning:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 5:34 AM, Hugo Mills h...@carfax.org.uk wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 10:40:31AM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
Seems that currently none of the sysfs are created any more, so just
remove sysfs support entirely.
Fixes compiling warnings in 3.0rc3
I would actually
2011/6/15 Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com:
On 06/15/2011 06:47 AM, Miao Xie wrote:
The following deadlock may happen when doing reservation for metadata:
Task0 Flush thread Task1
start_transaction()
shrink_delalloc()
writeback_inodes_sb_nr()
wait
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com wrote:
On 06/16/2011 10:36 AM, Mitch Harder wrote:
2011/6/15 Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com:
On 06/15/2011 06:47 AM, Miao Xie wrote:
The following deadlock may happen when doing reservation for metadata:
Task0
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Hugo Mills h...@carfax.org.uk wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 07:17:22PM +0400, Proskurin Kirill wrote:
On 06/20/2011 06:34 PM, Helmut Hullen wrote:
Du meintest am 20.06.11:
What we have:
SL6 - kernel 2.6.32-131.2.1.el6.x86_64
mdadm RAID5 with 8 HDD - 27T
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 5:55 AM, Wang Shilong
wangsl.f...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
We found btrfsck will output backrefs mismatch while the filesystem
is defenitely ok.
The problem is that check_block() don't return right value,which
makes btrfsck won't walk all tree blocks thus we don't get a
-progs. All WARN_ONs are treated the same
as BUG_ONs, and the program is halted.
Should we convert all our btrfs-progs WARN_ONs to BUG_ONs to
allow us to implement a true WARN_ON functionality?
Signed-off-by: Mitch Harder mitch.har...@sabayonlinux.org
---
kerncompat.h | 14 --
1 file
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 7:38 PM, Wang Shilong
wangsl.f...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
Hi Mitch,
On 02/25/2014 07:03 AM, Mitch Harder wrote:
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 5:55 AM, Wang Shilong
wangsl.f...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
We found btrfsck will output backrefs mismatch while the filesystem
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:50 AM, David Sterba dste...@suse.cz wrote:
There's a case which clone does not handle and used to BUG_ON instead,
(testcase xfstests/btrfs/035), now returns EINVAL. This error code is
confusing to the ioctl caller, as it normally signifies errorneous
arguments.
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Marcel Partap mpar...@gmx.net wrote:
This is the BTRFS development list, right? Someone here should know how
to achieve this I hope?
#Regards
On 01/03/14 02:21, Marcel Partap wrote:
Dear BTFRS devs,
I have a 1TB btrfs volume mounted read-only since two years
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 3:52 AM, Marc MERLIN m...@merlins.org wrote:
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 09:29:41AM +0100, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 01:18:40AM -0700, Marc MERLIN wrote:
On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 07:39:12PM +, Duncan wrote:
That appears to be a very good use of either
-ed from it's
previous version.
Now that we have a working sysfs, I wonder if we could implement some
counters to track how often snapshot-aware defrag would have run. I
might be surprised at how much it was doing.
---
Regards,
Mitch Harder
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Daniel Witzel dannyboy48...@gmail.com wrote:
Earlier I tried the read only patch with no result. Josef said I must be
applying it wrong because the error I get is not possible with the patch
applied.
I tried again with no luck and posted my steps for review.
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/01/2011 04:39 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
Hey Chris,
Since I'm going on vacation next week I wanted to get everything ready for
you
in case you get bored with fsck and want to put together a 3.1 tree :). If
you
can
2011/7/11 João Eduardo Luís jecl...@gmail.com:
Hello.
Am I reading the code the wrong way, or is the 'last_index' variable in
'__btrfs_buffered_write()' (and previously used in 'btrfs_file_aio_write()')
irrelevant?
It appears to just be used in 'prepare_pages()', passed as an argument,
2011/7/12 Chris Mason chris.ma...@oracle.com:
Excerpts from Mitch Harder's message of 2011-07-11 15:38:45 -0400:
2011/7/11 João Eduardo Luís jecl...@gmail.com:
Hello.
Am I reading the code the wrong way, or is the 'last_index' variable in
'__btrfs_buffered_write()' (and previously used
The variable 'last_index' is calculated in the __btrfs_buffered_write
function and passed as a parameter to the prepare_pages function,
but is not used anywhere in the prepare_pages function.
Remove instances of 'last_index' in these functions.
Signed-off-by: Mitch Harder mitch.har
I'm running into a significant slowdown in Btrfs ( 10x slower than
normal) that appears to be due to some issue between how Btrfs is
allocating memory, and how the kernel is expecting Btrfs to allocate
memory.
The problem does seem to be somewhat hardware specific. I can
reproduce on two of my
I am getting the following warnings intermittently with autodefrag enabled.
[70440.795530] [ cut here ]
[70440.795533] WARNING: at fs/inode.c:1333 iput+0x5e/0x14b()
[70440.795535] Hardware name: P35-DS3L
[70440.795536] Modules linked in: r8169 ipv6 snd_seq_midi
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com wrote:
This is confusing code and isn't used by anything anymore, so delete it.
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com
---
fs/btrfs/ctree.h | 11 -
fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 2 -
fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 100
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 4:37 AM, Liu Bo liubo2...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
Introduce a new concept sub transaction,
the relation between transaction and sub transaction is
transaction A --- transid = x
sub trans a(1) --- sub_transid = x+1
sub trans a(2) --- sub_transid = x+2
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 8:23 PM, Li Zefan l...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
Dan Merillat wrote:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Chris Mason chris.ma...@oracle.com wrote:
Excerpts from Dan Merillat's message of 2011-08-15 23:59:50 -0400:
Dan Carpenter sent a patch for this, I'll get it queued up for
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Chris Mason chris.ma...@oracle.com wrote:
Excerpts from Mitch Harder's message of 2011-08-18 11:40:17 -0400:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 8:23 PM, Li Zefan l...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
Dan Merillat wrote:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Chris Mason
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Berend Dekens bt...@cyberwizzard.nl wrote:
On 24/08/11 17:04, Arne Jansen wrote:
On 24.08.2011 17:01, Berend Dekens wrote:
On 24/08/11 15:31, Arne Jansen wrote:
On 24.08.2011 15:11, Berend Dekens wrote:
Hi,
I have followed the progress made in the btrfs
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Diego Calleja dieg...@gmail.com wrote:
This is what I got in my dmesg...I have lots of these warnings, didn't
notice it until now.
[ 235.705766] [ cut here ]
[ 235.705772] WARNING: at fs/inode.c:1309 iput+0x1ed/0x210()
[ 235.705773]
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 4:37 AM, Liu Bo liubo2...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
I've fixed a bug and rebased this to the latest for-linus branch,
and with applying my previous posted patch:
[PATCH] Btrfs: fix an oops of log replay
, I also test this sub transaction patchset with
a) sysbench
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com wrote:
I noticed while running xfstests 83 that if we didn't have enough space to
delete our inode the orphan cleanup would just loop. This is because it keeps
finding the same orphan item and keeps trying to kill it but can't
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 02:14:19PM -0500, Mitch Harder wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com wrote:
I noticed while running xfstests 83 that if we didn't have enough space to
delete our inode
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Fajar A. Nugraha l...@fajar.net wrote:
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 7:34 PM, Hugo Mills h...@carfax.org.uk wrote:
Fixes or updated patches for any problems you may find are
welcomed, of course.
I noticed that btrfs subvolume snapshot is now broken. It keeps on
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 03:45:45PM -0500, Mitch Harder wrote:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 02:44:09PM -0500, Mitch Harder wrote:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:00
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 5:50 AM, Tomasz Chmielewski t...@wpkg.org wrote:
I'm trying to defragment a 280 GB file when running 3.1.0-rc9 kernel:
# filefrag /mnt/btrfs/images/srv1-backup.qcow2
/mnt/btrfs/images/srv1-backup.qcow2: 1139699 extents found
# btrfs filesystem defragment
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Leonidas Spyropoulos
artafi...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello, I got a kernel bug error, my guess from BTRFS.
Here is the report,
Oct 22 20:44:43 localhost kernel: [25554.947970] BUG: unable to handle
kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0030
Oct 22
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 3:36 AM, Stephane CHAZELAS
stephane_chaze...@yahoo.fr wrote:
Hiya,
trying to restore a FS from a backup (tgz) on a freshly made
btrfs this morning, I got ENOSPCs after about 100MB out of 4GB
have been extracted. strace indicates that the ENOSPC are upon
the
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Chris Mason chris.ma...@oracle.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 12:02:31AM +0100, David Sterba wrote:
This one happened again, exactly same sequence of warnings and the crash
at the end (same stack traces). It was in integration-scrub branch, ie.
with all
On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 6:46 AM, Chris Mason chris.ma...@oracle.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 08:47:56PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 05:18:54PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
V1-V2: I stupidly thought I could get away with some flushing if we needed
space but I was
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:44 PM, 810d4rk 810d...@gmail.com wrote:
Is anyone there trying to reproduce the bug??
I've been using btrfs and luks encryption on my Acer netbook for about
a year now. I haven't had an unmountable corruption on that computer
yet.
What are your goals now?
Are you
I've been trying to get a handle on where my Btrfs partition would run
out of room, and I'm reaching the 'no space left' point earlier than I
was expecting.
I'm running the btrfs-unstable.git version as of commit 035fe03a Thu,
28 Jan 2010 21:20:39 (Btrfs: check total number of devices when
I received a kernel Oops while un-tarring a backed up root file system
to a btrfs partition.
I'm running the btrfs-unstable.git version as of commit 035fe03a Thu,
28 Jan 2010 21:20:39 (Btrfs: check total number of devices when
removing missing) back-ported to a 2.6.32 kernel.
I was attempting to
Some quick follow-up.
I pulled the most recent patches pushed to the git repository today,
backported them to my 2.6.32 kernel, and repeated the operation.
I received the same kernel Oops:
[ 1113.667345] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 001c
[ 1113.667348] IP:
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Leszek Ciesielski skol...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
in a long overdue followup to my previous email, I am sending a patch
that modifies the result of running 'df' against a btrfs volume. I
understand that, give the simplicity of 'df', there is not 'correct'
Since the 2.6.32 kernel is one of the long-term stable kernels, and
since a few projects (such as OpenVZ) and distros (such as Debian) are
using the 2.6.32 kernel, I've put together an experimental git branch
to backport later btrfs patches to the 2.6.32 kernel.
Let me know if there's any
I've been testing this patch (as well as the accompanying patch to btrfs-progs).
It seems to save a decent amount of space (maybe 10-20% according to
df in my testing, YMMV), but I was also noticing a performance penalty
of maybe 5-15%, depending on the application (in my case, I was timing
the
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Diego Calleja dieg...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jueves, 21 de Octubre de 2010 17:46:58 David Nicol escribió:
Does this mixing constitute a forbidden change of on-disk format, and
if not how not?
It doesn't need a format change. The difference between a data and
a
I was Googling around for ways to check fragmentation on Btrfs, and I
came across the 'filefrag' command.
Even though it is a ext2/3 command, it seems to work on Btrfs files
since it uses the FIEMAP ioctl to determine the number of extents.
From a bash prompt, I found I could examine large
My apologies if I missed it, but this looks like the most recent
version of this patch ([PATCH] Btrfs-progs: add support for mixed
data+metadata block groups V3), and this version needs updating to
take into account that BTRFS_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_SPACE_CACHE is no longer
needed.
The kernel btrfs
So alot of crazy people (I'm looking at you Meego) want to use btrfs
on phones and such with small devices. Unfortunately the way we split
out metadata/data chunks it makes space usage inefficient for volumes
that are smaller than 1gigabyte. So add a -M option for mixing
metadata+data, and
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 12:02:18PM -0600, Mitch Harder wrote:
Update the mkfs.btrfs man page for the -M option to mix data and
metadata chunks.
Signed-off-by: Mitch Harder mitch.har...@sabayonlinux.org
---
man/mkfs.btrfs
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Mike Fedyk mfe...@mikefedyk.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 6:28 AM, Marek Otahal markota...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday 12 of November 2010 18:44:12 you wrote:
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:41 PM, Josef Bacik jo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at
Update the mkfs.btrfs man page for the -M option to mix data and
metadata chunks.
---
man/mkfs.btrfs.8.in |7 +++
1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/man/mkfs.btrfs.8.in b/man/mkfs.btrfs.8.in
index 1e14c6c..432db1b 100644
--- a/man/mkfs.btrfs.8.in
+++
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 9:34 PM, Li Zefan l...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
Chris Mason wrote:
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 03:11:22PM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
Lzo is a much faster compression algorithm than gzib, so would allow
more users to enable transparent compression, and some users can
choose from
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Li Zefan l...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
Mitch Harder wrote:
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 9:34 PM, Li Zefan l...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
Chris Mason wrote:
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 03:11:22PM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
Lzo is a much faster compression algorithm than gzib, so
I've been getting a compile error when building the 'next-rc' branch
of btrfs-unstable.
CC fs/btrfs/disk-io.o
fs/btrfs/disk-io.c: In function ‘btree_migratepage’:
fs/btrfs/disk-io.c:716: error: called object ‘0u’ is not a function
make[2]: *** [fs/btrfs/disk-io.o] Error 1
make[1]: ***
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:40 AM, David Sterba d...@jikos.cz wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 08:48:37AM +0200, Arnd Hannemann wrote:
How show should we proceed to get above mentioned patch
(or the similar patch from Andrei Popa) merged?
Josef picked the patch into btrfs-next, I see not problem
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 8:28 PM, David Sterba d...@jikos.cz wrote:
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:19:14AM -0500, Mitch Harder wrote:
I was testing the lz4(hc) patches, and I found the the compression
INCOMPAT flags are not being updated using the method in this patch.
The compression INCOMPAT
to specify compress method when defrag)
in ioctl.c.
The second patch uses the new function in the above referenced
existing check for lzo INCOMPAT performed when defragmenting
with explicit lzo compression. This patch provides no
functional changes.
Mitch Harder (2):
Btrfs: Check INCOMPAT flags
In support of the recently added capability to remount with lzo
compression, check the compression INCOMPAT flags when remounting
with lzo compression, and set the flags if necessary.
Signed-off-by: Mitch Harder mitch.har...@sabayonlinux.org
---
fs/btrfs/ctree.h |1 +
fs/btrfs/super.c | 21
When defragmenting with explicit lzo compression, simplify
the check for lzo INCOMPAT by using the new common function
introduced to support remounting with lzo compression.
Signed-off-by: Mitch Harder mitch.har...@sabayonlinux.org
---
fs/btrfs/ioctl.c |7 +--
1 files changed, 1
In support of the recently added capability to remount with lzo
compression, check the compression INCOMPAT flags when remounting
with lzo compression, and set the flags if necessary.
Signed-off-by: Mitch Harder mitch.har...@sabayonlinux.org
---
v1-v2:
- Remove extraneous formatting change.
fs
When defragmenting with explicit lzo compression, simplify
the check for lzo INCOMPAT by using the new common function
introduced to support remounting with lzo compression.
Signed-off-by: Mitch Harder mitch.har...@sabayonlinux.org
---
fs/btrfs/ioctl.c |7 +--
1 files changed, 1
1 - 100 of 216 matches
Mail list logo
