similar to: Block size limited to Linux page size?

Hi there, I am newbie and recently started using btrfs. Now facing a weird problem. FWIW, I am on archlinux, kenel v3.8.0, having Btrfs v0.20-rc1. After an abnormal reboot, getting these errors while boot: systemd.fsck[289]: checking extents systemd.fsck[289]: checking fs roots systemd.fsck[289]: checking root refs systemd.fsck[289]: found 23728128 bytes used err is 0 systemd.fsck[289]: total

As far as I know, btrfs comes from "btree file system", but why does btrfs pronounce "butter-eff-ess"? -- Wang Shaoyan -- 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 Chris. I think it is needed to call mark_inode_dirty() when file size expands in order to flush metadata updates to HDD through sync() syscall or background_writeout(). Thanks. Signed-off-by: Hisashi Hifumi <hifumi.hisashi@oss.ntt.co.jp> diff -Nrup linux-2.6.29-rc3.org/fs/btrfs/file.c linux-2.6.29-rc3/fs/btrfs/file.c --- linux-2.6.29-rc3.org/fs/btrfs/file.c 2009-02-02

Hello, I was bored this weekend so I hacked up online dedup for Btrfs. It''s working quite well so I think it can be more widely tested. There are two ways to use it 1) Compatible mode - this is a bit slower but will handle being used by older kernels. We use the csum tree to find duplicate blocks. Since it is relatively easy to have crc32c collisions this also involves reading the

(switched to email. Please respond via emailed reply-to-all, not via the bugzilla web interface). On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 13:20:20 GMT bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org wrote: > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=29302 > > Summary: Null pointer dereference with large max_sectors_kb > Product: IO/Storage > Version: 2.5 > Kernel

Hello, On a newly created filesystem with btrfs-progs-git-20111009 and the 3.1.0-rc8 kernel I am getting the following error when doing btrfsck after main OS installation fs tree 256 refs 2 unresolved ref root 256 dir 256 index 2 namelen 8 name __active error 600 found 4215058432 bytes used err is 1 total csum bytes: 3962760 total tree bytes: 157192192 total fs tree bytes: 146976768

Hi, Doing some extensive benchmarks on BTRFS, I encountered a kernel bug in BTRFS (as reported in dmesg) Maybe the information below can help you making btrfs better. Situation Doing an intensive sequential write on a SAS 3TB disk drive (SEAGATE ST33000652SS) with 128 threads with Sysbench. Device is connected through an HBA. Blocksize was 256k ; Kernel is 3.3.0 (x86_64) ; Btrfs is version

Hello everyone, Btrfs v0.16 is available for download, please see http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/ for download links and project information. v0.16 has a shiny new disk format, and is not compatible with filesystems created by older Btrfs releases. But, it should be the fastest Btrfs yet, with a wide variety of scalability fixes and new features. There were quite a few contributors this time

Use access_extent_buffer_page() to point at btree location of inline compressed data so it can be inflated without a memcopy. Signed-off-by: jim owens <jowens@hp.com> Signed-off-by: jim owens <jim6336@gmail.com> --- V2 fixes whitespace checkpatch warning fs/btrfs/extent_io.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++ fs/btrfs/extent_io.h | 3 +++ 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I mentioned a ghost file. Here is the dump (less than 65M): http://dev.mccme.ru/~raskin/btrfs.dump ghost file is: 885dj1l4788pymp3bk2f3dz52ggcvw4v-empty/garbage-1/mwave.h.tmp-31838-1822528541 It has a name, but stat fails (so no inode, I guess). Also I can create another file with the same name in the directory. I cannot remove the file, or

Hi folks! Been using btrfs for quite a while now, worked great until now. Got power-loss on my machine and now i have the "parent transid verify failed on X wanted X found X" problem. So I can''t get it to mount. My btrfs is spread over sda (2tb), sdc(2tb), sdd(1tb). Is this something that an offline fsck could fix ? If so is the fsck-util being developed ? Is there a way to

Hi All, I''m trying to repair a broken fs using btrfsck and am hitting a failed assertion. I''d appreciate any suggestions for what to do next. Is there any thing I can do to help fix this bug? Any other information from my FS which would help? If the FS could be salvaged that would be a bonus, but I''m more interested in providing a useful bug report before wiping the

Hi, In btrfs, inode number is increased each time a new file or directory is made. Therefore, if the making deletion of the file is repeated, value of ''i_ino'' increases rapidly. For example, inode number changes as follows. $ touch foo $ ls -i foo 266 foo $ rm foo $ touch bar $ ls -i bar 267 bar $ And then, length of ''i_ino'' and

Hello, I''ve got a quick question: Does btrfs adapt to size changes of the underlying block device(s)? My specific situation is as follows: I''ve got a luks-volume on which I want to put btrfs. If this luks-volume grows in the future (i.e. by ''cryptsetup resize''), will btrfs automatically (and reliably) "see" this and be able to use the additional

Hello all, I recently had a power failure and can no longer mount my /home directory. The harddrive has two BTRFS partitions: sda7(/) and sda8(/home). The / partition loads up just fine, but /home does not. I''ve tried btrfsck as shown below and I''ve included dmesg pertaining to btrfs. This is on ArchLinux and the software versions are as follows: btrfs-progs-unstable

Hi, We did some performance test and found the create/delete files performance of btrfs is very poor. The test is that we create 50000 files and measure the file-create time first, and then delete these 50000 files and measure the file-delete time. (The attached file is the reproduce program) The result is following: (Unit: second) Create file performance BtrFS Ext4 Total times:

I thought I would try btrfs on a new installation of f14. yes, I know its experimental but stable so it seemed to be a good time to try it. I am not sure if I have missed something out of all my searching but am I correct in thinking that currently: I. it is not possible to boot from a snapshot of the operating system and, in particular, the yum snapshots cannot be used for

Hi all, I''m running btrfs in a 3-disk RAID1 configuration. After a hard power-off, I''m seeing a lot of hung I/O tasks on this volume, apparently due to a corrupt leaf. I first noticed the problem on kernel 3.4.7, and it''s persisted with 3.4.8. Relevant parts of the kernel log follow. [ 85.179621] block group 38684065792 has an wrong amount of free space [

I did some btrfs RTFS over the weeking and I have a hard time understanding what this code is attempting to do: 28 int btrfs_tree_lock(struct extent_buffer *eb) 29 { 30 int i; 31 32 if (mutex_trylock(&eb->mutex)) 33 return 0; 34 for (i = 0; i < 512; i++) { 35 cpu_relax(); 36 if

Dear list members, In my previous thread at http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org/msg23333.html there was a space_cache kernel bug/panic on kernel 3.8. I could successfully "fix" that with rebuilding the cache. But some files were missing/corrupted. So I booted a rescue CD with kernel 3.7 and ran btrfsck --repair, which repaired quite a few things. After a reboot I