Re: RAID5: btrfs rescue chunk-recover segfaults.

On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 14:15:55 +0100 Simon Waid wrote: > I have a btrfs raid5 array that has become unmountable. That's the third time you send this today. Will you keep resending every few hours until you get a reply? That's not how mailing lists work. -- With respect,

Re: raid5/6 production use status?

Hey. I've lost a bit track recently and the wiki changelog doesn't seem to contain much about how things went on at the RAID5/6 front... so how're things going? Is it already more or less "productively" usable? What's still missing? Well, you still can't even check for free space. You

Re: raid5/6 production use status?

On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 11:24:45AM +0200, Gerald Hopf wrote: > > >Hey. > > > >I've lost a bit track recently and the wiki changelog doesn't seem to > >contain much about how things went on at the RAID5/6 front... so how're > >things going? > > > >Is it already more or less "productively" usable?

Re: raid5/6 production use status?

Hey. I've lost a bit track recently and the wiki changelog doesn't seem to contain much about how things went on at the RAID5/6 front... so how're things going? Is it already more or less "productively" usable? What's still missing? Well, you still can't even check for free space. ~ # btrfs

Re: Raid5 replace disk problems

Jussi Kansanen posted on Thu, 21 Apr 2016 18:09:31 +0300 as excerpted: > The replace operation is super slow (no other load) with avg. 3x20MB/s > (old disks) reads and 1.4MB/s write (new disk) with CFQ scheduler. Using > deadline schd. the performance is better with avg. 3x40MB/s reads and >

Re: RAID5 Unable to remove Failing HD

Hi, Le 19/04/2016 11:13, Anand Jain a écrit : > >>> # btrfs device delete 3 /mnt/store/ >>> ERROR: device delete by id failed: Inappropriate ioctl for device >>> >>> Were the patch sets above for btrfs-progs or for the kernel ? >> [...] > > By the way, For Lionel issue, delete missing should

Re: RAID5 Unable to remove Failing HD

Anand Jain posted on Tue, 19 Apr 2016 17:13:04 +0800 as excerpted: >>> # btrfs device delete 3 /mnt/store/ >>> ERROR: device delete by id failed: Inappropriate ioctl for device >>> >>> Were the patch sets above for btrfs-progs or for the kernel ? >> >> Looks like you're primarily interested in

Re: RAID5 Unable to remove Failing HD

# btrfs device delete 3 /mnt/store/ ERROR: device delete by id failed: Inappropriate ioctl for device Were the patch sets above for btrfs-progs or for the kernel ? Looks like you're primarily interested in the concern2 patches, device delete by devid. A quick search of the list back-history

Re: RAID5 Unable to remove Failing HD

Lionel Bouton posted on Mon, 18 Apr 2016 10:59:35 +0200 as excerpted: > Hi, > > Le 10/02/2016 10:00, Anand Jain a écrit : >> >> Thanks for the report. Fixes are in the following patch sets >> >> concern1: >> Btrfs to fail/offline a device for write/flush error: >>[PATCH 00/15] btrfs: Hot

Re: RAID5 Unable to remove Failing HD

Le 18/04/2016 10:59, Lionel Bouton a écrit : > [...] > So the obvious thing to do in this circumstance is to delete the drive, > forcing the filesystem to create the missing replicas in the process and > only reboot if needed (no hotplug). Unfortunately I'm not sure of the > conditions where this

Re: RAID5 Unable to remove Failing HD

Hi, Le 10/02/2016 10:00, Anand Jain a écrit : > > > Rene, > > Thanks for the report. Fixes are in the following patch sets > > concern1: > Btrfs to fail/offline a device for write/flush error: >[PATCH 00/15] btrfs: Hot spare and Auto replace > > concern2: > User should be able to delete a

Re: raid5

Austin S. Hemmelgarn posted on Wed, 02 Mar 2016 08:43:17 -0500 as excerpted: > On 2016-03-01 16:44, Duncan wrote: >> John Smith posted on Tue, 01 Mar 2016 15:24:04 +0100 as excerpted: >> >>> what is the status of btrfs raid5 in kernel 4.4? Thank you >> >> That is a very good question. =:^) >> >>

Re: raid5

On 2016-03-01 16:44, Duncan wrote: John Smith posted on Tue, 01 Mar 2016 15:24:04 +0100 as excerpted: what is the status of btrfs raid5 in kernel 4.4? Thank you That is a very good question. =:^) The answer, to the best I can give it, is, btrfs raid56 mode has no known outstanding bugs

Re: raid5

John Smith posted on Tue, 01 Mar 2016 15:24:04 +0100 as excerpted: > what is the status of btrfs raid5 in kernel 4.4? Thank you That is a very good question. =:^) The answer, to the best I can give it, is, btrfs raid56 mode has no known outstanding bugs specific to it at this time (unless a

Re: RAID5 Unable to remove Failing HD

Arnand, thanks for the tip. What kernels are these meant for? I am not able to apply these cleanly to the kernels i have tried. Or is there a kernel with these incorporated? I have tried rebooting without the disk attached and am unable to mount the partition. Complaining about bad tree and

Re: RAID5 Unable to remove Failing HD

On 02/11/2016 12:58 AM, Rene Castberg wrote: Arnand, thanks for the tip. What kernels are these meant for? I am not able to apply these cleanly to the kernels i have tried. Or is there a kernel with these incorporated? As I am trying again, they apply nice on v4.4-rc8 (last commit

Re: RAID5 Unable to remove Failing HD

Rene, Thanks for the report. Fixes are in the following patch sets concern1: Btrfs to fail/offline a device for write/flush error: [PATCH 00/15] btrfs: Hot spare and Auto replace concern2: User should be able to delete a device when device has failed: [PATCH 0/7] Introduce device

Re: RAID5 doesn't mount on boot, but you can afterwards?

On Sunday 04 October 2015 02:28:29 Duncan wrote: > guido_kuenne posted on Sat, 03 Oct 2015 22:53:46 +0200 as excerpted: > > Beginner here, so just if it helps: My two-device raid 1 mounts on boot > > in Fedora 22 (uuid in fstab, no further devices specified) but I mount > > the fs via uuid while

Re: raid5 + HDFS

On 2015-10-05 00:00, Martin Tippmann wrote: 2015-10-03 16:50 GMT+02:00 Jim Dowling >: As you point out, hdfs does its own checksumming of blocks, which is needed as blocks are transferred over the network. So, yes it is double

Re: RAID5 doesn't mount on boot, but you can afterwards?

guido_kuenne posted on Sat, 03 Oct 2015 22:53:46 +0200 as excerpted: > Beginner here, so just if it helps: My two-device raid 1 mounts on boot > in Fedora 22 (uuid in fstab, no further devices specified) but I mount > the fs via uuid while Sjoerd mounted subvolumes. From what I understand > (not

Re: raid5 + HDFS

2015-10-03 0:07 GMT+02:00 Jim Dowling : > Hi Hi, I'm not a btrfs developer but we run HDFS on top of btrfs (mainly due to other use-cases that profit from checksumming data) > I am interested in combining BtrFS RAID-5 with erasure-coded replication for > HDFS. We have an

Re: RAID5 doesn't mount on boot, but you can afterwards?

On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 07:04:43PM +0200, Sjoerd wrote: > On Thursday 01 October 2015 02:21:23 Duncan wrote: > > > That's very likely because unlike traditional single-device filesystems > > (including single-device btrfs), multi-device btrfs has multiple devices > > it must know about before it

Re: RAID5 doesn't mount on boot, but you can afterwards?

Hugo Mills posted on Thu, 01 Oct 2015 17:46:15 + as excerpted: > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 07:04:43PM +0200, Sjoerd wrote: >> On Thursday 01 October 2015 02:21:23 Duncan wrote: >> >> > That's very likely because unlike traditional single-device >> > filesystems (including single-device btrfs),

Re: RAID5 doesn't mount on boot, but you can afterwards?

hi my fstab looks as follows (nb: i added the recovery option to see if that would help, which didn't) the bootdisk (and @home)is a ssd and the label STORAGE represents the RAID5 array: # /etc/fstab: static file system information. # # Use 'blkid' to print the universally unique identifier for

Re: RAID5 doesn't mount on boot, but you can afterwards?

Hello, On 30/09/15, Sjoerd wrote: > Hi All, > > A RAID5 setup on raw devices doesn't want to automount on boot. > [..] Post your /etc/fstab file please. Thanks -- Sent using mutt -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to

Re: RAID5 doesn't mount on boot, but you can afterwards?

Sjoerd posted on Wed, 30 Sep 2015 18:49:21 +0200 as excerpted: > A RAID5 setup on raw devices doesn't want to automount on boot. After I > skip mounting I can log in (Ubuntu server 14.04 on kernel 4.1.8) and > just do a "sudo mount -a" to get all mounted fine. So the array doesn't > seem to be

Re: RAID5/6 Implementation - Understanding first

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 04:20:58PM -0700, Tony Plack wrote: Chris and team, hats off on the RAID5/6 being at least experimental. I have been following your work for a year now, and waiting for these days. I am trying to get my head rapped around the architecture for BTRFS before I jump in

Re: raid5 - again

2011/2/19 Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk r...@karlsbakk.net: hi It's been some two years since I read about the becoming of raid5 etc in btrfs. Since the code is available in linux, Code of what? Raid5? Raid5 is some functionality that can't be easly ported to another project with different blocks

Re: raid5 - again

On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 10:11:30PM +0100, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote: It's been some two years since I read about the becoming of raid5 etc in btrfs. Since the code is available in linux, why isn't this already in btrfs? Is Oracle holding back? It's about resourcing and stability. Oracle