similar to: pvcreate fails with "Write locks are prohibited with --ignorelockingfailure. Can't get lock for orphan PVs"

Hi all, I had centos 5.9 installed with one of its volumes (non-root) on LVM: ... /dev/vgapps/lvapps /opt/apps ext3 defaults 1 2 ... Then installed centos 6.4 on this servers but without exporting this volume (I wanted to reuse it). After that instead importing it I did: # pvcreate /dev/sddlmac # vgcreate vgapps /dev/sddlmac And then realised that I should have

This patch series allows you to shrink various objects, as requested in the following bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=585221 # resize2fs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=585222 # pvresize https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=585223 # ntfsresize The first patch provides a consistent way to specify numbers with suffixes to guestfish, eg: truncate-size /foo

Hi Joel/Srini, Here are 2 patches for orphan lock in local mode. patch 1: In local mode, we don't need lvb, so don't init it. patch 2: In local mode, orphan lock and unlock don't need to go to dlm part. Regards, Tao

OK folks, I'm back at it again. Instead of taking my J4400 ( 24 x 1T disks) and making a big RAID60 out of it which Linux cannot make a filesystem on, I'm created 4 x RAID6 which each are 3.64T I then do : sfdisk /dev/sd{b,c,d,e} <<EOF ,,8e EOF to make a big LVM partition on each one. But then when I do : pvcreate /dev/sd{b,c,d,e}1 and then pvdisplay It shows each one as

Hi! Company behind PVS-Studio analyzed relatively recent version of LLVM and some results are reported in http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0446/. Eugene.

The appliance has no LVM system ID set, which means that lvm commands will ignore VGs with a system ID set to anything. Since we want to work with them, pass --foreign at least when listing them to see them. See also lvmsystemid(7). --- daemon/lvm.c | 10 ++++++---- generator/daemon.ml | 1 + 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/daemon/lvm.c b/daemon/lvm.c

Hi everyone. This isn't specifically a CentOS question, since it could apply for any distro but I hope someone can answer it anyway. I took the following steps but was puzzled by the outcome of the test at the end: 1. Create a RAID1 array called md3 with two 750GB drives 2. Create a RAID1 array called md9 with two 500GB drives 3. Initialise md3 then md9 as physical volumes (pvcreate) 4.

Hi, Jonas! On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 3:26 AM, Jonas Wagner <jonas.wagner at epfl.ch> wrote: > Hi Eugene, > > I think this is really cool! You've convinced me to try out PVS on some of > my own projects :) > > Of all the warnings presented in the article, there was one for which I > thought it's a false positive. By default, LLVM is compiled without RTTI and >

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 05:41:28PM +0200, Pino Toscano wrote: > The appliance has no LVM system ID set, which means that lvm commands > will ignore VGs with a system ID set to anything. Since we want to work > with them, pass --foreign at least when listing them to see them. > > See also lvmsystemid(7). This is sort of a hack, if I'm understanding correctly. Can we not

I noticed we were getting lots of warnings with xfstest 83 because we have reservations outstanding. This is because we moved the orphan add outside of the truncate, but we don''t actually cleanup our reservation if something fails. This fixes the problem and I no longer see warnings. Thanks, Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com> --- fs/btrfs/inode.c | 2 ++ 1

On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Jonas Wagner via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hello, > > I think this should be added by Clang itself. > > > I don't think so. There are several sources online that indicate that > developers need to *manually* specify std::nothrow. If they don't, > operator new will throw an exception even if code is

Thanks Mike, for your prompt reply. On 7/19/2011 11:12 AM, Michael Smith wrote: > On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Raymond Lutz <raylutz at cognisys.com > <mailto:raylutz at cognisys.com>> wrote: > > QUESTIONS: > 1. I am curious why two listener entries are created for each > Blackberry listener. Ideas? > > > Icecast doesn't make any

I noticed while running xfstests 83 that if we didn''t have enough space to delete our inode the orphan cleanup would just loop. This is because it keeps finding the same orphan item and keeps trying to kill it but can''t because we don''t get an error back from iput for deleting the inode. So keep track of the last guy we tried to kill, if it''s the same as the

Hi, I'm using xapian(1.2.2) python interface to connect remote xapian-tcpserv daemon. I'm starting the daemon as given below: xapian-tcpsrv --port 9100 --interface 127.0.0.1 --writable ./xapiandb/ and in script.py: import xapian as xa db = xa.remote_open_writable('localhost', 9100) # other stuff # ... script is a long running program, and when i try to run

Because orphan cleanup now happens well after the fs is all initialized and such, we can run into this problem where we find orphan entries that were just added to the fs, not ones that were added previously during a crash. This does not bode well for the system, and results in a couple of odd things happening, like truncate being run on non-regular files. In order to fix this we just check and

lld does not seem to create the __start and __end symbols for orphan sections. I would like to keep my linker script as generic as possible so how can I tell lld to create these symbols without having to add them in the linker script? Thanks A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi all, In 1.4 and 1.2 there is a hole that leaves orphans in a orphan directory till fsck was run or recovery occurs on that slot. In the current implementation, if node A did rm of a file while it is opened by node B. Now if node A umounts and node B dies and is restarted first, it only recovers itself leaving orphan file in node A's orphan directory. In order to fix the problem, I am

Currently orphan cleanup only ever gets triggered if we cross subvolumes during a lookup, which means that if we just mount a plain jane fs that has orphans in it, they will never get cleaned up. This results in panic''s like these http://www.kerneloops.org/oops.php?number=1109085 where adding an orphan entry results in -EEXIST being returned and we panic. In order to fix this, we

I booted the guest in which i was testing btrfs (transient ENOSPC issues, etc). It booted in emergency mode. [ 6.705187] device label testfs1 devid 1 transid 4141 /dev/sdb1 [ 6.724353] device label fedora devid 1 transid 2036 /dev/sda2 [ 6.780931] device label fedora devid 1 transid 2036 /dev/sda2 [ 6.817157] snd_hda_intel 0000:00:04.0: irq 42 for MSI/MSI-X [ 6.818326]

Hi, I''m using btrfs on Ubuntu 10.10 for some test partitions. After doing some normal operations I suddenly couldn''t mount the partition anymore. I always get the error "BTRFS: inode 120790 still on the orphan list" in the kernel log again and again and it''s impossible to stop the mount command or shutdown the system. Any ideas how to work around this issue?