similar to: [BUG] Cannot Mount Btrfs Volume Created By mkfs.btrfs v0.18-26-g0030f1d

Hi, I''m hitting this issue - sda5 is a normal device, nothing to do with loop, encryption etc. # mkfs.btrfs /dev/sda5 WARNING! - Btrfs v0.19-35-g1b444cd-dirty IS EXPERIMENTAL WARNING! - see http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org before using error checking /dev/sda5 mount status Is there something I can do to resolve this? Thank you Lubos -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line

(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 everyone, Yan Zheng sent along an update for the new format patch today, and it slightly changed the disk format for backrefs used when balancing space across drives. We decided against supporting an intermediate format that was only a week old, and his update makes a few important features much much easier (snapshot deletion for one). If you''ve tried the newformat branch and run

I''m hitting an error with the default mkfs.btrfs in debian wheezy: ford:~# uname -a Linux ford.blinkenlights.nl 3.1.0-1-kirkwood #1 Tue Nov 15 00:17:24 UTC 2011 armv5tel GNU/Linux ford:~/btrfs-progs# dpkg -l | grep btrfs ii btrfs-tools 0.19+20111105-1 Checksumming Copy on Write Filesystem utilities ford:~# mkfs.btrfs /dev/vgroot/home WARNING! - Btrfs Btrfs

Heyho! (This is using btrfs from Debian''s 2.6.32 2.6.32-3-kirkwood kernel (-9 package; btrfs tools is v0.19-16-g075587c) A few observations about btrfsck: a btrfsck run on a 2T volume (4 disks) on a QNAP appliance (512M ram) got killed by Mr. OOM Killer. Initially, I was quite surprised. I''m only moderately surprised now since it might well be that I forgot to enable

Hi. I got following BUG trace. This is violation of BUG_ON(!buffer_locked(bh)) check on submit_bh() function. In write_dev_supers(), if wait parameter is set and buffer_uptodate() check is negative, submit_bh() is executed and hit above BUG_ON. So I fixed this issue. Thanks. Jun 9 00:41:32 dl580 kernel: ------------[ cut here ]------------ Jun 9 00:41:32 dl580 kernel: kernel BUG at

Hi everybody, I am using btrfs as my main fs for some time now, but I am experiencing severe performance drawbacks. I can''t qualify the circumstances, but sometimes during disc access the whole system freezes for some time. Maybe somebody could suggest some general things I could try to search for the problem? Thanks in advance, Florian --- Some background information: $ mount |

Hello Developers, it seems that i discovered a bug in btrfs while testing it on a zSeries mainframe :-) ## Test environment: - IBM System z900 Mainframe - Debian SID with 64 Bit Kernel - GIT Sources from git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/btrfs-unstable.git - System runs as z/VM guest - 3 Virtual CPUs - 1 GB RAM Storage ## Initial Test Setup - Setup a Debian SID System with

Hi, I reported a bug to anaconda (rhbz 901905), but it might be btfs related. Anaconda does this: 18:49:10,317 INFO program: Running... mkfs.btrfs --data=single --label=fedora /dev/vdb1 /dev/vdc1 /dev/vdd1 /dev/vde1 18:49:10,742 INFO program: 18:49:10,746 INFO program: WARNING! - Btrfs Btrfs v0.19 IS EXPERIMENTAL 18:49:10,746 INFO program: WARNING! - see http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org before

E.g. btrfsctl -r -4000m /dev/sda5 results in: ioctl:: Inappropriate ioctl for device Distribution: Ubuntu 10.10 Kernel: 2.6.35-22-generic According to the Synaptic Package manager, the version of btrfs-tools is 0.19+20100601-3 Other information that can be of interest: - I started Ubuntu on a live CD - before invoking the btrfsctl command I invoked apt-get update. I have googled but have not

Hello I did the following commands and resulted in a segmentation fault. [root@localhost ~]# mkfs.btrfs /dev/sda6 WARNING! - Btrfs Btrfs v0.19 IS EXPERIMENTAL WARNING! - see http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org before using fs created label (null) on /dev/sda6 nodesize 4096 leafsize 4096 sectorsize 4096 size 46.93GB Btrfs Btrfs v0.19 [root@localhost ~]# mount /dev/sda6 /mnt/btra [root@localhost ~]#

Hello list, recently reformatted my home partition from XFS to RAID1 btrfs. I used the default options to mkfs.btrfs except for enabling raid1 for data as well as metadata. Filesystem is made up of two 1TB drives. mike@mercury (0) pts/3 ~ $ sudo btrfs filesystem show Label: none uuid: f08a8896-e03e-4064-9b94-9342fb547e47 Total devices 2 FS bytes used 888.06GB devid 1 size 931.51GB used

I''ve run a little wired benchmark on comparing Btrfs v0.19 and XFS: There are 2000 directories and each directory contains 1000 files. The workload randomly stat a file or chmod a file for 2000000 times. And the number of stat and chmod are 50% and 50%. I monitor the number of disk read requests #Disk Write Requests, #Disk Read Requests, #Disk Write Sectors, #Disk Read

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. I''m considering an imminent switch from ext4 to btrfs and I''m hoping that someone can lend me advice before I do something unsupported. I have a software raid 6 array configured via mdadm. It was sitting at 8 x 3TB until I recently doubled that, grew the array and found that ext4 doesn''t want to resize. So, I''m looking to: 1. convert from ext4 to btrfs

Hallo, linux-btrfs, First I create an array of 2 disks with mkfs.btrfs -d raid0 -m raid1 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdd1 and mount it at /srv/MM. Then I fill it with about 1,6 TByte. And then I add /dev/sde1 via btrfs device add /dev/sde1 /srv/MM btrfs filesystem balance /srv/MM (it run about 20 hours) Then I work on it, copy some new files, delete some old files - all works well. Only df

Michael Stone wrote: > It seems that touch -a does update ctime on btrfs, invalidating one of > the assumptions behind this test and causing it to fail. s/does/does not/ Thanks for the report. I''ve just confirmed this test failure by building and running coreutils'' "make check" on a btrfs file system I''d just created using mkfs.btrfs v0.19 on Fedora

I have accidently damaged the first block(s) of a btrfs partition and can''t mount it anymore. I can see that my data is still intact by running a command like: cat /dev/sda5 | hexdump -C | more Do any (experimental) tools exist which would allow me to recover the files? Thank you -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a

Hi, the $subj warning appears sometimes in syslog, in my case when xfstests/209 runs looped. The minimal reproducer is looped mkfs+mount. The message comes from disk-io.c btree_readpage_end_io_hook(): 581 if (check_tree_block_fsid(root, eb)) { 582 printk_ratelimited(KERN_INFO "btrfs bad fsid on block %llu\n", 583 (unsigned long

-----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