Did something break.. ? we are not reporting raid type after balance.
---
# btrfs fi df /btrfs
Data, RAID0: total=2.00GB, used=2.03MB
Data: total=8.00MB, used=0.00
System, RAID0: total=16.00MB, used=4.00KB
System: total=4.00MB, used=0.00
Metadata, RAID0: total=2.00GB, used=216.00KB
Meta
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 4:23 AM, Harald Glatt wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 1:29 AM, Harald Glatt wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Harald Glatt wrote:
>>> Hi list,
>>>
>>> what are currently the backup options for btrfs?
>>>
>>> Is it possible to somehow duplicate the entire filesystem
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 1:29 AM, Harald Glatt wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Harald Glatt wrote:
>> Hi list,
>>
>> what are currently the backup options for btrfs?
>>
>> Is it possible to somehow duplicate the entire filesystem including
>> all snapshots without using the real space for
Hi,
When inode_cache was specified for the mount option, I encountered the
following messages at umount.
Step to reproduce:
mkfs.btrfs -f /dev/sdc4
mount -o compress=lzo,autodefrag,inode_cache /dev/sdc4 /test1
dd if=/dev/zero of=/test1/file1 bs=1M count=8192
dd if=/test1/file1 of=/dev/null b
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Harald Glatt wrote:
> Hi list,
>
> what are currently the backup options for btrfs?
>
> Is it possible to somehow duplicate the entire filesystem including
> all snapshots without using the real space for each snapshot onto a
> remote server? (Maybe given the remote
__btrfs_unlink_inode() aborts its transaction when it sees errors after
it removes the directory item. But it missed the case where
btrfs_del_dir_entries_in_log() returns an error. If this happens then
the unlink appears to fail but the items have been removed without
updating the directory size.
Hi Jan,
I have manually applied this patch and also your previous patch onto
kernel 3.8.2, but, unfortunately, I am still hitting the issue:(
I will check further whether I can be more helpful in debugging this
issue, than just reporting it:(
Thank for your help,
Alex.
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 3
Hi list,
what are currently the backup options for btrfs?
Is it possible to somehow duplicate the entire filesystem including
all snapshots without using the real space for each snapshot onto a
remote server? (Maybe given the remote server uses btrfs too?) Are
these features planned?
Right now t
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Swâmi Petaramesh wrote:
> Le 02/04/2013 19:04, Roman Mamedov a écrit :
>> but at this point I trust my data to BTRFS more, than I would trust ZFS.
>
> My experience with ZFS on Linux is still somewhat limited, the only
> thing that I can say is that I've used it for
Le 02/04/2013 19:04, Roman Mamedov a écrit :
> but at this point I trust my data to BTRFS more, than I would trust ZFS.
My experience with ZFS on Linux is still somewhat limited, the only
thing that I can say is that I've used it for about 2 years and a half
on my (quite loaded) home server withou
On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 10:24:39 +0200
Swâmi Petaramesh wrote:
> Goodbye BTRFS, hello ZFS :-)
>
> I'm finally making the move, I couldn't stand the terrible BTRFS
> performance anymore, and spending 2 long minutes waiting for the HD LED
> to come off everytime I clicked anywhere.
>
> Did what I cou
On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 10:55:04AM -0600, Roman Mamedov wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 09:46:26 -0400
> Josef Bacik wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 02:04:52AM -0600, Roman Mamedov wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > With kernel 3.7.10 patched with "Btrfs: limit the global reserve to
> > > 512mb".
On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 09:46:26 -0400
Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 02:04:52AM -0600, Roman Mamedov wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > With kernel 3.7.10 patched with "Btrfs: limit the global reserve to 512mb".
> > (the problem was occuring also without this patch, but seemed to be even
> > w
I noticed that we will add a block group to the space info before we add it to
the block group cache rb tree, so we could potentially allocate from the block
group before it's able to be searched for. I don't think this is too much of
a problem, the race window is microscopic, but just in case mov
Hi David,
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 8:12 PM, David Sterba wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 11:56:37AM -0700, Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote:
>> A few weeks ago I replaced a ZFS backup system with one backed by
>> btrfs. A script loops over a bunch of hosts rsyncing them to each
>> their own subvolume. Aft
On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 02:04:52AM -0600, Roman Mamedov wrote:
> Hello,
>
> With kernel 3.7.10 patched with "Btrfs: limit the global reserve to 512mb".
> (the problem was occuring also without this patch, but seemed to be even
> worse).
>
> At the start of balance:
>
> Data: total=31.85GB, used
Hello Jan,
> Hi Wang,
>
> On Thu, March 28, 2013 at 11:53 (+0100), Wang Shilong wrote:
>> From: Wang Shilong
>>
>> This patch introduces mutex lock 'quota_lock', and makes
>> all the user change for quota protected by quota_lock.
>
> Can you please add a few lines why this lock is needed? I.e
Hi Wang,
On Thu, March 28, 2013 at 11:53 (+0100), Wang Shilong wrote:
> From: Wang Shilong
>
> This patch introduces mutex lock 'quota_lock', and makes
> all the user change for quota protected by quota_lock.
Can you please add a few lines why this lock is needed? I.e., which ioctls fail
withou
On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:04:52 +0600
Roman Mamedov wrote:
> With kernel 3.7.10 patched with "Btrfs: limit the global reserve to 512mb".
> (the problem was occuring also without this patch, but seemed to be even
> worse).
>
> At the start of balance:
>
> Data: total=31.85GB, used=9.96GB
> System:
Goodbye BTRFS, hello ZFS :-)
I'm finally making the move, I couldn't stand the terrible BTRFS
performance anymore, and spending 2 long minutes waiting for the HD LED
to come off everytime I clicked anywhere.
Did what I could, got the latest kernels, defragged, removed BTRFS
snapshots, to no avail
Hello,
With kernel 3.7.10 patched with "Btrfs: limit the global reserve to 512mb".
(the problem was occuring also without this patch, but seemed to be even worse).
At the start of balance:
Data: total=31.85GB, used=9.96GB
System: total=4.00MB, used=16.00KB
Metadata: total=1.01GB, used=696.17MB
21 matches
Mail list logo
