search for: raid56

Hi, The last few days I have been playing around with Chris Mason''s raid56-experimental branch (Thanks!) and discovered two minor issues. Thanks, Andreas Andreas Philipp (2): Minor format cleanup. Correct allowed raid levels on balance. fs/btrfs/ctree.h | 4 ++-- fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 11 +++++------ 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) -- 1.7.12.4...

If we''ve abandoned the idea of putting the number of redundant blocks into the top bits of the type bitmask (and I hope we have), then we''re fairly much there. Current code is at: git://, http://git.infradead.org/users/dwmw2/btrfs-raid56.git git://, http://git.infradead.org/users/dwmw2/btrfs-progs-raid56.git We have recovery working, as well as both full-stripe writes and a temporary hack to allow smaller writes to work (with the ''write hole'' problem, of course). The main thing we need to do is ensure that we...

Hi gang, Here''s some trivial cleanups that I''ve built up while reading through the code. They''ve been run through xfstests -g quick. - z -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Hi all Having managed ZFS for about two years, I want to post a wishlist. INCLUDED IN ZFS - Mirror existing single-drive filesystem, as in ''zfs attach'' - RAIDz-stuff - single and hopefully multiple-parity RAID configuration with block-level checksumming - Background scrub/fsck - Pool-like management with multiple RAIDs/mirrors (VDEVs) - Autogrow as in ZFS autoexpand NOT

...flag; + const char *desc; +} mkfs_features[] = { + { "mixed-bg", BTRFS_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_MIXED_GROUPS, + "mixed data and metadata block groups" }, + { "extref", BTRFS_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_EXTENDED_IREF, + "increased hardlink limit per file to 65536" }, + { "raid56", BTRFS_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_RAID56, + "raid56 extended format" }, + { "skinny-metadata", BTRFS_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_SKINNY_METADATA, + "reduced-size metadata extent refs" }, + /* Keep this one last */ + { "list-all", BTRFS_FEATURE_LIST_ALL, NULL } +}; + +stat...

We discussed using the top bits of the chunk type field field to store a number of redundant disks -- so instead of RAID5, RAID6, etc., we end up with a single ''RAID56'' flag, and the amount of redundancy is stored elsewhere. This attempts it, but I hate it and don''t really want to do it. The type field is designed as a bitmask, and _used_ as a bitmask in a number of places -- I think it''s ugly and fragile to do it this way (and degrade...

...Total devices 1 FS bytes used 28.00KB devid 1 size 9.31GB used 989.62MB path /dev/sdc8 Btrfs v0.20-rc1-165-g82ac345 # But we should check out the swap device. So fixed it. Signed-off-by: Tsutomu Itoh <t-itoh@jp.fujitsu.com> --- (this patch is based on Chris''s raid56-experimental branch) --- mkfs.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ utils.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ utils.h | 1 + 3 files changed, 68 insertions(+) diff --git a/mkfs.c b/mkfs.c index 2d3c2af..fdc3373 100644 --- a/mkfs.c +++ b/mkfs.c @@ -1366,6 +1366,15 @@ int main(int ac,...

.... That is so much simpler to create and manage. disk>no partition>Btrfsraid>subvolumes instead of partitions It doesn't have all the features of mdadm or lvm, especially when it comes to VM images. But for general purpose data, it's nice. It'll use different sized drives in a raid56, no fuss, no having to tell it how to do that. Online addition of yet another (unlike sized) drive and it just starts using it with a single 'btrfs device add' command. No restripe/resilver needed. -- Chris Murphy

...better throughput for samba 4.1 but write always less. How can i improve the write throughput? Am not looking to change any registry settings .( http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff625695%28v=WS.10%29.aspx). Following tuning i already tried. http://h3x.no/2011/07/09/tuning-ubuntu-mdadm-raid56 https://erikugel.wordpress.com/tag/mdadm/ Any idea or suggestion are most welcome.Thanks in advance. Regards, Bglr

...n"); ret = check_fs_roots(root, &root_cache); if (ret) diff --git a/ctree.h b/ctree.h index 2117374..761987a 100644 --- a/ctree.h +++ b/ctree.h @@ -470,7 +470,7 @@ struct btrfs_super_block { #define BTRFS_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_EXTENDED_IREF (1ULL << 6) #define BTRFS_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_RAID56 (1ULL << 7) #define BTRFS_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_SKINNY_METADATA (1ULL << 8) - +#define BTRFS_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_NO_HOLES (1ULL << 9) #define BTRFS_FEATURE_COMPAT_SUPP 0ULL #define BTRFS_FEATURE_COMPAT_RO_SUPP 0ULL @@ -482,7 +482,8 @@ struct btrfs_super_block { BTRFS_FEATURE_I...

On 2/18/2015 8:20 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Niki Kovacs<info at microlinux.fr> wrote: >> >Le 18/02/2015 23:12, Chris Murphy a ?crit : >>> >> >>> >>"installer is organized around mount points" is correct, and what gets >>> >>mounted on mount points? Volumes, not partitions. >> >

...t. It should not be used for anything other than testing purposes." I'm reluctant to store anything of value on it. Have you considered using ZoL? I've been using it for quite some time and haven't lost data. - Ryan http://prefetch.net [1] https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/RAID56 On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Mark Haney <mark.haney at neonova.net> wrote: > On 09/07/2017 01:57 PM, hw wrote: >> >> >> Hi, >> >> is there anything that speaks against putting a cyrus mail spool onto a >> btrfs subvolume? >> > I might be th...

Hi, is there anything that speaks against putting a cyrus mail spool onto a btrfs subvolume?

...ag. + */ btrfs_set_super_incompat_flags(disk_super, features); features = btrfs_super_compat_ro_flags(disk_super) & diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c index 2854c82..e710db4 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c @@ -3674,18 +3674,10 @@ static u32 find_raid56_stripe_len(u32 data_devices, u32 dev_stripe_target) static void check_raid56_incompat_flag(struct btrfs_fs_info *info, u64 type) { - u64 features; - if (!(type & (BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_RAID5 | BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_RAID6))) return; - features = btrfs_super_incompat_flags(info->super_copy)...

On Sat, February 28, 2015 4:22 pm, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Valeri Galtsev > <galtsev at kicp.uchicago.edu> wrote: >> Indeed. That is why: no LVMs in my server room. Even no software RAID. >> Software RAID relies on the system itself to fulfill its RAID function; >> what if kernel panics before software RAID does its job? Hardware RAID

Btrfs has been broken for me for ages. I first reported it on this list 5 months ago[1]. Below is a very simple reproducer that anyone can run. *NB* before you run this, adjust /dev/sda & /dev/sda1 to point to an unused block device! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- #!/bin/sh - set -e while true; do parted -s -- /dev/sda mklabel msdos parted -s --

Hi Linus, My for-linus branch has a one line fix: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git for-linus Sage hit a deadlock with ceph on btrfs, and Josef tracked it down to a regression in our initial rc1 pull. When doing nocow writes we were sometimes starting a transaction with locks held. Josef Bacik (1) commits (+1/-0): Btrfs: release path before starting