similar to: snapshot consumed space

Since btrfs does not do recursive atomic snapshots (which I am ok with), I am doing this myself. A handful of suggestions/problems came up. 1. Maybe btrfsprogs could gain an option to do recursive non-atomic snapshots at the userspace level, simply invoking low-level atomic snapshots one by one? For the following, the kernel is 3.4.4 with the too-overloaded "0.19" version of

Good afternoon btrfs, I have been having issues with snapshots not reading the whole file tree below them. I have installed new btrfs-progs from git://git.darksatanic.net/repo/btrfs-progs-unstable.git made and installed them. My tree is: /Btrfs | |__ nfs1 | |__ data |

Fedora provides yum-fs-snapshot. If installed, on each package installation or update a snapshot of all btrfs filesystems is taken, so it is possible to revert the installation/update. Suppose an update failed and I want to get back: with # btrfs subvolume set-default yum-snapshot-whatever / I define which snapshot to use at the next boot. After rebooting I decide I really want to stay with

Glück Auf! I use now kernel 3.2. The filesystem was originally created under 2.6.39 on 1 whole hdd, mounted with "noatime,nodiratime,inode_cache". I use it for backups: rsync the whole system to a subvolume, snapshot it and then delete some tempfiles in the snapshot, which are 90% of the full-backup, all once a day. In figures: on this 1 TB hdd is the full-backup with around 600 GiB and

Hi Everyone, Recently i created a snapshot of an existing volume which had some amount of data. Now that after creating the snapshot i have tried deleting the same snapshot. But i am getting ENOTEMPTY for "rmdir". But when i see the actual files inside are deleted not the parent directory. From the code it looks like if (inode->i_size >

I have started rewriting the ioctl#21 patch using a less hacky architecture, including defining a new kind of structure that explicitly organizes information common to delayed/deferred systems, (the list of work pieces, and an atomic for counting active worker threads) and replacing the lists of work pieces, in ioctl#21-tracked deferred systems, with this structure instead. I started march 25,

Is there a limit to the number of snapshots that can exist on a file system concurrently? Did I read something here recently about a limit to the number of paths by which a file could be known? If there are limits, then what happens when I bump into or exceed that limit? --rich -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to

Hi all, I had been clearing the space cache on my btrfs vol (Debian 3.10.11-1 btrfs-tools 2013-7-5) by changing the fstab to "nospace_cache, clear_cache". I ran btrfsck --repair and it said: "cache and super generation don''t match, space cache will be invalidated." Can one of the dev''s please tell me whether that message means that the space cache

At the beginning of August, Mikulas Patocka posted to linux-kernel mailing list about adding snapshot merging to LVM[1]. Basicaly, snapshot merging means that it is possible to turn a snapshot back into its origin. Using LVM, however, means that you need to have free place outside of the filesystem (i.e., in physical volume) to make snapshots, which is not always possible on workstations and

What happens if you set an individual file inside a subvolume as nocow (chattr +C) and then take a snapshot of that subvolume and modify the file in both? Will btrfs now ignore the nocow attribute completely or will it do "as few copies as possible"? (I''d love to know if it''s possible to visualize the fragmentation of a single file.) -- To unsubscribe from this list:

Good morning Btrfs list, I am trying to create a subvolume of a directory tree (approximately 1.1 million subvolumes under nfs1). The following error is thrown and without the wiki I don''t know what argument is needed. I am running kernel 3.1.0-rc4. [root@btrfs ~]# btrfs sub snapshot /btrfs/nfs1/ /btrfs/snaps/ Invalid arguments for subvolume snapshot [root@btrfs ~]# btrfs sub list

We want ''btrfs subvolume list'' only to list readonly subvolumes, this patch set introduces a new option ''r'' to implement it. You can use the command like that: btrfs subvolume list -r <mnt> Changelog v2 -> v3: - re-implement list_subvols() - re-implement this read-only subvolume list function based on the new list_subvols() Changelog v1 -> v2: -

btrfs 0.19 Ubuntu 10.10 Linux linux 2.6.35-23-generic #41-Ubuntu SMP Wed Nov 24 11:55:36 UTC 2010 x86_64 GNU/Linux I create a new btrfs on a 200GB disk with one partition. I mount the partition. I create a snapshot of that partition. I unmount the partition. I run btrfsck and it says I have an "unresolved ref" error. If I create two snaps, I get three errors. If I create three snaps, I

Josef has implemented mixed data/metadata chunks, we must add those chunks'' space just like data chunks. Signed-off-by: Miao Xie <miaox@cn.fujitsu.com> --- fs/btrfs/super.c | 7 +++---- 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/super.c b/fs/btrfs/super.c index 61bd79a..1d21208 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/super.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/super.c @@ -768,11 +768,10

If cow_file_range_inline fails with ENOSPC we abort the transaction which isn''t very nice. This really shouldn''t be happening anyways but there''s no sense in making it a horrible error when we can easily just go allocate normal data space for this stuff. Thanks, Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> --- fs/btrfs/inode.c | 5 ++++- 1 files changed, 4

Hi, there''s no information about reporting bugs in the btrfs wiki, so I try it here. For testing purposes, I have put all my Gentoo portage (build, distfiles, etc.) related LVs into one 10G btrfs with 4 subvolumes. While building OpenOffice yesterday, it failed with a "No space left on device" error, although the LV was only 69% full in total. Details (Builds of Gentoo

While exploring some btrfs maintenance with respect to defragmenting I ran the following commands: # filefrag /path/to/34G.file /path/to/5.7G.file /path/to/34G.file: 2406 extents found /path/to/5.7G.file: 572 extents found Thinking those mostly static files could be less fragmented I ran: # btrfs filesystem defragment -c /path/to/34G.file # btrfs filesystem defragment -c /path/to/5.7G.file and

We can reproduce this oops via the following steps: $ mkfs.btrfs /dev/sdb7 $ mount /dev/sdb7 /mnt/btrfs $ for ((i=0; i<3; i++)); do btrfs sub snap /mnt/btrfs /mnt/btrfs/s_$i; done $ rm -fr /mnt/btrfs/* $ rm -fr /mnt/btrfs/* then we''ll get ------------[ cut here ]------------ kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/inode.c:2264! [...] Call Trace: [<ffffffffa05578c7>] btrfs_rmdir+0xf7/0x1b0

Hey list, I wonder if it is possible to deduplicate read-only snapshots. Background: I''m using an bash/rsync script[1] to backup my whole system on a nightly basis to an attached USB3 drive into a scratch area, then take a snapshot of this area. I''d like to have these snapshots immutable, so they should be read-only. Since rsync won''t discover moved files but

A user reported getting spammed when moving to 3.0 by this message. Since we switched to the normal checksumming infrastructure all old free space caches will be wrong and need to be regenerated so people are likely to see this message a lot, so ratelimit it so it doesn''t fill up their logs and freak them out. Thanks, Reported-by: Andrew Lutomirski <luto@mit.edu> Signed-off-by: