search for: sectorsize

Our code is not ready to cope with a sectorsize that''s not equal to PAGE_SIZE. It will lead to hanging-on while writing something. Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <liubo2009@cn.fujitsu.com> --- fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 6 +++--- 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c index 201...

I was using a GELI partition for /usr/home on 7.0, so it attaches and mounts on boot. The problem is it stopped working after the system was upgraded to RELENG_7/7.1-PRERELEASE. Here's how it goes: I have the following /etc/fstab: /dev/ad0s1b none swap sw 0 0 /dev/ad0s1a / ufs rw 1 1 /dev/ad0s1d

Hi, everyone! mkfs.btrfs just does the following check for sectorsize when we use it to make a btrfs. sectorsize = max(sectorsize, (u32)getpagesize()); Does that mean we can set sectorsize to any number greater than pagesize? If not, I think we should do more check for sectorsize in mkfs.btrfs. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lin...

We''ve been hitting BUG()''s in btrfs_cont_expand and btrfs_fallocate and anywhere else that calls btrfs_get_extent while running xfstests 13 in a loop. This is because fiemap is calling btrfs_get_extent with non-sectorsize aligned offsets, which will end up adding mappings that are not sectorsize aligned, which will cause problems in some cases for subsequent calls to btrfs_get_extent for similar areas that are sectorsize aligned. With this patch I ran xfstests 13 in a loop for a couple of hours and didn''t...

I have a GPT formatted disk where I recently expanded the size of a partition. I used "gpart resize -i 6 ada1" first to expand the partition to use the remaining free space and then growfs to modify the FFS file system to use the full partition. This was all done in single-user mode, of course, but when I enter "exit" to bring the system up, it failed to mount /usr. This was

Hi, Question is pretty simple: "How to change node size and leaf size on previously created partition?" Now, I know what most people will say: "you should''ve be smarter while typing mkfs.btrfs". Well, I''m intending to convert in place ext4 partition but there seems to be no option for leaf and node size in this tool. If it''s not possible I guess

moved the node-,leaf-,sectorsize from btrfs_root to btrfs_fs_info since we don''t intend to allow different sizes between trees also removed sectorsize from btrfs_block_group_cache because it now can use the one in fs_info updated all uses accordingly please note in disk-io.c: -static int __setup_root(nodesize, leafsize,...

...lues do not match: external mkfs_btrfs : t -> ?allocstart:int64 -> ?bytecount:int64 -> ?datatype:string -> ?leafsize:int -> ?label:string -> ?metadata:string -> ?nodesize:int -> ?sectorsize:int -> string array -> unit = "ocaml_guestfs_mkfs_btrfs_byte" "ocaml_guestfs_mkfs_btrfs" is not included in val mkfs_btrfs : t -> ?allocstart:int64 -> ?bytecount:int64 -> ?datatype:string ->...

...s_growfs call, since it's not available on Fedora. (http://libguestfs.org/guestfs.3.html#availability) I tested this on Debian, and although we appear to be invoking the growfs.ufs command correctly, the growfs command contains a bug. It appears that Debian doesn't implement the BSD DIOCGSECTORSIZE ioctl, which means that growfs on Debian always dies with this error message: bogus sectorsize: 0 This appears to be a Debian bug. Someone else can do a bit more investigation on that one and file a bug if necessary. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat...

...ntroller Bios is Symbios SDMS v4.0 (4.18.02) The CDRW device to boot from is a Yamaha CRW2100S Rev1.0H I tried Isolinux 1.63 and 1.66 with similar "success": here's what the debug version says: --snip-- ISOLINUX: starting up, DL=F0 ISOLINUX: Loaded spec packet OK, drive=F0 ISOLINUX: Sectorsize appears to be 0800 ISOLINUX: Loading main Image from LBA 00029B70 ISOLINUX: Sectors to load=0004 ISOLINUX: Disk error, drive F0 Boot failed, press any key to retry --snap-- I guess that Sectorsize is shown in hex, other than that there is something awfully wrong?!? The same CD boots on two othe...

...trfs_inode_item *btrfs_inode, - ext2_filsys ext2_fs, ext2_ino_t ext2_ino, - struct ext2_inode *ext2_inode) + ext2_filsys ext2_fs, ext2_ino_t ext2_ino) { int ret; char *buffer = NULL; @@ -455,6 +458,7 @@ static int create_file_extents(struct bt u32 last_block; u32 sectorsize = root->sectorsize; u64 inode_size = btrfs_stack_inode_size(btrfs_inode); + u32 inode_flags = btrfs_stack_inode_flags(btrfs_inode); struct blk_iterate_data data = { .trans = trans, .root = root, @@ -466,6 +470,9 @@ static int create_file_extents(struct bt .checksum = 1, .errcod...

...here any quick fixes to eliminate this warning or is it safe to ignore please? sudo gpart list: Geom name: mirror/gm0 modified: false state: CORRUPT fwheads: 255 fwsectors: 63 last: 976773166 first: 63 entries: 4 scheme: MBR Providers: 1. Name: mirror/gm0s1 Mediasize: 500107829760 (465G) Sectorsize: 512 Stripesize: 0 Stripeoffset: 32256 Mode: r2w2e3 attrib: active rawtype: 165 length: 500107829760 offset: 32256 type: freebsd index: 1 end: 976773167 start: 63 Consumers: 1. Name: mirror/gm0 Mediasize: 500107861504 (465G) Sectorsize: 512 Mo...

...actually open /dev/sda etc on the host (don't run tests as root!) Thanks! > However ... > > We already use blocksize as an optional parameter to mkfs. While they > don't directly conflict, it is confusing. Is there a reason we > shouldn't call this new parameter "sectorsize"? > > We can change the parameter name any time up til we make the next > stable release. But mkfs has 'sectorsize' optional parameter as well. :-) Here are my thoughts: 1. Our 'blocksize' parameter is related to disks and it's using everywhere in context of disks...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807905 Currently if you specify the blocksize parameter to mkfs-opts with a btrfs filesystem, then it fails, because mkfs.btrfs interprets the -b option as meaning filesystem size. The first patch fixes this by disallowing blocksize (it cannot be mapped meaningfully into btrfs parameters). The second patch adds the full /sbin/mkfs.btrfs utility to the

...+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- 2 files changed, 123 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/man/mkfs.btrfs.8.in b/man/mkfs.btrfs.8.in index a3f1503..548e754 100644 --- a/man/mkfs.btrfs.8.in +++ b/man/mkfs.btrfs.8.in @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ mkfs.btrfs \- create a btrfs filesystem [ \fB\-s\fP\fI sectorsize\fP ] [ \fB\-r\fP\fI rootdir\fP ] [ \fB\-K\fP ] +[ \fB\-O\fP\fI feature1,feature2,...\fP ] [ \fB\-h\fP ] [ \fB\-V\fP ] \fI device\fP [ \fIdevice ...\fP ] @@ -77,6 +78,14 @@ Specify a directory to copy into the newly created fs. \fB\-K\fR, \fB\-\-nodiscard \fR Do not perform whole device TRIM...

Hello list, Last night one disk of my desktop machine dead causing a hard lock of the computer. It was a component of a mirror volume so it wasn't as serious as it initially looked. Unfortunately, the metadata structure of my data partition (a geom raid3 array with tree components ) seems to be corrupted by this hard lock, the following message is scrolled constantly on the screen:

...t; interpretation of Wikipedia indicates that it should be possible to > create a MBR disk with 4K sector size. Maybe I'm doing something > wrong, or parted just doesn't support this case. > > So it appears that we should just have one blocksize control (maybe > called "sectorsize"?) which sets both physical_block_size and > logical_block_size to the same value. It may also be worth enforcing > that blocksize/sectorsize must be set to 512 or 4096 (which we can > relax later if necessary). If we stick with the only parameter, I think blocksize might be better...

...m doing something > wrong, or parted just doesn't support this case. I seem to remember that 4k native disks require GPT, but if you say you read otherwise, I'm not 100% sure about this any more. > So it appears that we should just have one blocksize control (maybe > called "sectorsize"?) which sets both physical_block_size and > logical_block_size to the same value. It may also be worth enforcing > that blocksize/sectorsize must be set to 512 or 4096 (which we can > relax later if necessary). A single option (to control logical_block_size) makes sense for libgues...

...amba: 3.0.23c kernel: 2.6.9-42.0.3.EL (32-bit) I am using the below code for my test. smb fails on open(2). #include <fcntl.h> #include <unistd.h> #include <stdio.h> #include <string.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <errno.h> #include <stdint.h> #define SECTORSIZE 512 #define ALIGN_NUM(val, mult) (((val) + ((mult) - 1)) & ~(((mult) - 1))) #define ALIGN_PTR(ptr, mult) (void *)ALIGN_NUM((uintptr_t)(ptr), mult) #define DECL_ALIGNED_BUFFER(name, size) \ char __##name[(size) + SECTORSIZE]; \ char *name = (char *)ALIGN_PTR(__##name, SECTORSIZE) #defin...

Since 2.6.29-rc1 contains btrfs I had to try it. However the loopback mount of my btrfs formatted file fails: user@host:~$ dd if=/dev/zero of=btrfs.img bs=1MB count=512 user@host:~$ mkfs.btrfs btrfs.img fs created label (null) on btrfs.img nodesize 4096 leafsize 4096 sectorsize 4096 size 488.28MB Btrfs v0.16+da35ab2b0b54 user@host:~$ sudo mount -t btrfs -o loop btrfs.img /mnt/btrfs mount: /dev/loop1: can''t read superblock Is this version of mkfs.btrfs compatible with the kernel module in 2.6.29-rc1? Any help is appreciated. Regards, Peter. -- To unsubscribe...