Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 01:38:36PM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > >>I'm not sure if the brfsck is really all that helpful to user as much > >>as it is for developers to better learn about the failure vectors of > >>the file system. > > > >ReiserFS had no working fsck for all of the 8 years I

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On 2016-09-19 14:27, Chris Murphy wrote: On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: ReiserFS had no working fsck for all of the 8 years I used it (and still didn't last year when I tried to use it on an old disk). "Not working" here means "much less

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: >> ReiserFS had no working fsck for all of the 8 years I used it (and still >> didn't last year when I tried to use it on an old disk). "Not working" >> here means "much less data is readable from the filesystem

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On 2016-09-19 00:08, Zygo Blaxell wrote: On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 01:02:43PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: Right, well I'm vaguely curious why ZFS, as different as it is, basically take the position that if the hardware went so batshit that they can't unwind it on a normal mount, then an fsck

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 08:32:14AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > On 2016-09-18 23:47, Zygo Blaxell wrote: > >On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:56:03PM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > >>4. File Range Cloning and Out-of-band Dedupe: Similarly, work fine if the FS > >>is healthy. > > > >I've

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 12:08:55AM -0400, Zygo Blaxell wrote: > > At the end of the day I'm not sure fsck really matters. If the filesystem > is getting corrupted enough that both copies of metadata are broken, > there's something fundamentally wrong with that setup (hardware bugs, > software

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On 2016-09-18 22:57, Zygo Blaxell wrote: On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 08:00:44AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: To be entirely honest, both zero-log and super-recover could probably be pretty easily integrated into btrfs check such that it detects when they need to be run and does so. zero-log

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On 2016-09-18 23:47, Zygo Blaxell wrote: On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:56:03PM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: 4. File Range Cloning and Out-of-band Dedupe: Similarly, work fine if the FS is healthy. I've found issues with OOB dedup (clone/extent-same): 1. Don't dedup data that has not been

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 01:02:43PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > Right, well I'm vaguely curious why ZFS, as different as it is, > basically take the position that if the hardware went so batshit that > they can't unwind it on a normal mount, then an fsck probably can't > help either... they still

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:56:03PM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > 4. File Range Cloning and Out-of-band Dedupe: Similarly, work fine if the FS > is healthy. I've found issues with OOB dedup (clone/extent-same): 1. Don't dedup data that has not been committed--either call fsync() on it, or

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 08:00:44AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > To be entirely honest, both zero-log and super-recover could probably be > pretty easily integrated into btrfs check such that it detects when they > need to be run and does so. zero-log has a very well defined situation in >

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On 2016-09-15 17:23, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: On Thu, 2016-09-15 at 14:20 -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: 3. Fsck should be needed only for un-mountable filesystems. Ideally, we should be handling things like Windows does. Preform slightly better checking when reading data, and if

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On 2016-09-15 16:26, Chris Murphy wrote: On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Hugo Mills wrote: On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 01:02:43PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: 2. We're developing new features

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On Thu, 2016-09-15 at 14:20 -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > 3. Fsck should be needed only for un-mountable filesystems.  Ideally, > we  > should be handling things like Windows does.  Preform slightly > better  > checking when reading data, and if we see an error, flag the > filesystem  > for

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Hugo Mills wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 01:02:43PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn >> wrote: >> >> > 2. We're developing new features without making sure that check

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 01:02:43PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn > wrote: > > > 2. We're developing new features without making sure that check can fix > > issues in any associated metadata. Part of merging a new

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > 2. We're developing new features without making sure that check can fix > issues in any associated metadata. Part of merging a new feature needs to > be proving that fsck can handle fixing any issues in the

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On 2016-09-15 14:01, Chris Murphy wrote: On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 5:35 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2016-09-12 16:08, Chris Murphy wrote: - btrfsck status e.g. btrfs-progs 4.7.2 still warns against using --repair, and lists it under dangerous options also; while

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 5:35 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > On 2016-09-12 16:08, Chris Murphy wrote: >> >> - btrfsck status >> e.g. btrfs-progs 4.7.2 still warns against using --repair, and lists >> it under dangerous options also; while that's true, Btrfs can't be >>

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 02:44:35PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > Just to cut yourself some slack, you could skip 3.14 because it's EOL > now, and just go from 4.4. Don't the btrfs-tools used to create the filesystem also play a huge role in this game? Greetings Marc --

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

Am Dienstag, 13. September 2016, 07:28:38 CEST schrieb Austin S. Hemmelgarn: > On 2016-09-12 16:44, Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > >> Am Montag, 12. September 2016, 23:21:09 CEST schrieb Pasi Kärkkäinen: > >>> On Mon, Sep

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On 2016-09-12 16:08, Chris Murphy wrote: On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: Things listed as TBD status: 1. Seeding: Seems to work fine the couple of times I've tested it, however I've only done very light testing, and the whole feature is

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On 2016-09-12 16:44, Chris Murphy wrote: On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Martin Steigerwald wrote: Am Montag, 12. September 2016, 23:21:09 CEST schrieb Pasi Kärkkäinen: On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 09:57:17PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote: Am Montag, 12. September 2016,

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On 2016-09-13 04:38, Timofey Titovets wrote: https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Status I suggest to mark RAID1/10 as 'mostly ok' as on btrfs RAID1/10 is safe to data, but not for application that uses it. i.e. it not hide I/O error even if it's can be masked.

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Status I suggest to mark RAID1/10 as 'mostly ok' as on btrfs RAID1/10 is safe to data, but not for application that uses it. i.e. it not hide I/O error even if it's can be masked. https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg56739.html /* Retest it with

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote: On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 09:57:17PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote: Great. I made to minor adaption. I added a link to the Status page to my warning in before the kernel log by feature page. And I also mentioned that at the time the page was last updated the latest

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > Am Montag, 12. September 2016, 23:21:09 CEST schrieb Pasi Kärkkäinen: >> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 09:57:17PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote: >> > Am Montag, 12. September 2016, 18:27:47 CEST schrieb David Sterba: >>

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

Am Montag, 12. September 2016, 23:21:09 CEST schrieb Pasi Kärkkäinen: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 09:57:17PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > Am Montag, 12. September 2016, 18:27:47 CEST schrieb David Sterba: > > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 04:27:14PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: > > > > > I

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 09:57:17PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > Am Montag, 12. September 2016, 18:27:47 CEST schrieb David Sterba: > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 04:27:14PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: > > > > I therefore would like to propose that some sort of feature / stability > > > > matrix

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > > Things listed as TBD status: > 1. Seeding: Seems to work fine the couple of times I've tested it, however > I've only done very light testing, and the whole feature is pretty much > undocumented. Mostly OK.

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

Am Montag, 12. September 2016, 18:27:47 CEST schrieb David Sterba: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 04:27:14PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: > > > I therefore would like to propose that some sort of feature / stability > > > matrix for the latest kernel is added to the wiki preferably somewhere > > > where

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On 2016-09-12 13:29, Filipe Manana wrote: On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2016-09-12 12:27, David Sterba wrote: On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 04:27:14PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: I therefore would like to propose that some sort of feature /

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > On 2016-09-12 12:27, David Sterba wrote: >> >> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 04:27:14PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: I therefore would like to propose that some sort of feature / stability matrix for the

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On 2016-09-12 12:27, David Sterba wrote: On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 04:27:14PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: I therefore would like to propose that some sort of feature / stability matrix for the latest kernel is added to the wiki preferably somewhere where it is easy to find. It would be nice to

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 04:27:14PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: > > I therefore would like to propose that some sort of feature / stability > > matrix for the latest kernel is added to the wiki preferably somewhere > > where it is easy to find. It would be nice to archive old matrix'es as > >