Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH next] Btrfs: fix comparison in __btrfs_map_block()

2016-07-17 Thread Christoph Hellwig
On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 03:51:03PM -0500, Mike Christie wrote: > > > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c > > index a69203a..6ee1e36 100644 > > --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c > > +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c > > @@ -5533,7 +5533,7 @@ static int __btrfs_map_block(struct btrfs_fs_info > > *

Re: mount btrfs takes 30 minutes, btrfs check runs out of memory

2016-07-17 Thread Qu Wenruo
At 07/16/2016 07:17 PM, John Ettedgui wrote: On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:54 PM John Ettedgui mailto:john.etted...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:26 PM Qu Wenruo mailto:quwen...@cn.fujitsu.com>> wrote: > Would increasing the leaf size help as well? > nodatac

Re: [PATCH] vfs: allow FILE_EXTENT_SAME (dedupe_file_range) on a file opened ro

2016-07-17 Thread Adam Borowski
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 12:13:38AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > Instead of checking the mode of the file descriptor, let's check whether it > could have been opened rw. This allows fixing intermittent exec failures > when deduping a live system: anyone trying to exec a file currently being > dedu

[PATCH] vfs: allow FILE_EXTENT_SAME (dedupe_file_range) on a file opened ro

2016-07-17 Thread Adam Borowski
Instead of checking the mode of the file descriptor, let's check whether it could have been opened rw. This allows fixing intermittent exec failures when deduping a live system: anyone trying to exec a file currently being deduped gets ETXTBSY. Issuing this ioctl on a ro file was already allowed

Re: Status of SMR with BTRFS

2016-07-17 Thread Matthias Prager
Am 17.07.2016 um 22:10 schrieb Henk Slager: > What kernel (version) did you use ? > I hope it included: > http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/mkp/linux.git/commit/?h=bugzilla-93581&id=7c4fbd50bfece00abf529bc96ac989dd2bb83ca4 > > so >= 4.4, as without this patch, it is quite problematic, if

Re: [PATCH next] Btrfs: fix comparison in __btrfs_map_block()

2016-07-17 Thread Mike Christie
On 07/15/2016 10:03 AM, Vincent Stehlé wrote: > Add missing comparison to op in expression, which was forgotten when doing > the REQ_OP transition. > > Fixes: b3d3fa519905 ("btrfs: update __btrfs_map_block for REQ_OP transition") > Signed-off-by: Vincent Stehlé > Cc: Mike Christie > Cc: Jens Axb

Re: Status of SMR with BTRFS

2016-07-17 Thread Henk Slager
>>> It's a Seagate Expansion Desktop 5TB (USB3). It is probably a >>> ST5000DM000. >> >> >> this is TGMR not SMR disk: >> >> http://www.seagate.com/www-content/product-content/desktop-hdd-fam/en-us/docs/100743772a.pdf >> So it still confirms to standard record strategy ... > > > I am not convinced.

Re: Status of SMR with BTRFS

2016-07-17 Thread Henk Slager
On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Matthias Prager wrote: > from my experience btrfs does work as badly with SMR drives (I only had > the opportunity to test on a 8TB Seagate device-managed drive) as ext4. > The initial performance is fine (for a few gigabytes / minutes), but > drops of a cliff as

Re: [BUG] Btrfs scrub sometime recalculate wrong parity in raid5

2016-07-17 Thread Jarkko Lavinen
On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 06:51:11PM +0300, Jarkko Lavinen wrote: > The modified script behaves very much like the original dd version. Not quite. The bad sector simulation works like old hard drives without error correction and bad block remapping. This changes the error behaviour. My script pri

Re: [PATCH 0/3] Btrfs: fix free space tree bitmaps+tests on big-endian systems

2016-07-17 Thread Chandan Rajendra
On Friday, July 15, 2016 12:15:15 PM Omar Sandoval wrote: > On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 12:34:10PM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote: > > On Thursday, July 14, 2016 07:47:04 PM Chris Mason wrote: > > > On 07/14/2016 07:31 PM, Omar Sandoval wrote: > > > > From: Omar Sandoval > > > > > > > > So it turns out

Re: Status of SMR with BTRFS

2016-07-17 Thread Hendrik Friedel
Hi Thomasz, @Dave I have added you to the conversation, as I refer to your notes (https://github.com/kdave/drafts/blob/master/btrfs/smr-mode.txt) thanks for your reply! It's a Seagate Expansion Desktop 5TB (USB3). It is probably a ST5000DM000. this is TGMR not SMR disk: http://www.seagate.

Re: Status of SMR with BTRFS

2016-07-17 Thread Matthias Prager
Hello Hendrik, from my experience btrfs does work as badly with SMR drives (I only had the opportunity to test on a 8TB Seagate device-managed drive) as ext4. The initial performance is fine (for a few gigabytes / minutes), but drops of a cliff as soon as the internal buffer-region for non-sequent