similar to: ENOSPC Regression

I''ve just finished installing onto an OCZ Agilent v2 SSD with btrfs as filesystem. However to my surprise I''ve hit an ENOSPC condition one one of the partitions within less than a day of uptime, while the filesystem on that partition only reported 50% to be in use, which is far from the 75% limit people mention on the ML. Note that this occurs using a vanilla 2.6.32-rc5 kernel

I''ve been working on running down intermittent ENOSPC issues. I can only seem to replicate ENOSPC errors when running zlib compression. However, I have been seeing similar ENOSPC errors to a lesser extent when playing with the LZ4HC patches. I apologize for not following up on this sooner, but I had drifted away from using zlib, and didn''t notice there was still an issue. My

The fault code has been calling file_update_time after ->page_mkwrite after it drops the page lock, but this is annoying because this calls mark_inode_dirty which can fail in Btrfs, so we want to be able to do these updates in ->page_mkwrite so we can get an error back to the user. So get rid of the file_update_time calls in the fault code and push it into everybody who has a

This reverts commit 5500cdbe14d7435e04f66ff3cfb8ecd8b8e44ebf. We had numerous reports of premature ENOSPC that were bisected to this patch. Reverting will not break things but a warning in ''use_block_rsv'' may show up in the syslog. There''s no alternative fix in sight and the ENOSPC problem affects all 3.3 btrfs users during normal filesystem use. CC:

Hello, Trying to put together a list of TODO items for btrfs so we can update the wiki page fully. So far these things are on the list * Proper ENOSPC handling * O_DIRECT support (without checksumming) * AIO support * Subvolume quotas and inherited space usage information * Snapshot removal * QA Suite for automated regression testing * Reserved space for online fsck and the ability to add

Hello, I just updated and pushed btrfs-next, if it is missing something let me know. I had to kick out the printk formatting patch because it didn''t compile and I didn''t take Miao''s background enospc flushing stuff since some of it didn''t apply and 5/5 hasn''t been updated to force waiting on background flushers. Let me know if I missed anything

Hello, So there is an odd case where we can possibly return -ENOSPC when there is in fact space to be had. I think I finally have a hold on what the problem is, it only happens with Metadata writes, and happens _very_ infrequently. What has to happen is we have to allocate have allocated out of the first logical byte on the disk, which would set last_alloc to first_logical_byte(root, 0), so

When testing with max_extents=4k, we enospc out really really early. The reason for this is we really overwhelm the system with our worst case calculation. When we try to flush delalloc, we don''t want everybody to wait around forever, so we wake up the waiters when we''ve done some of the work in hopes that its enough work to get everything they need done. The problem with this

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

An user reported that he has hit an annoying deadlock while playing with ceph based on btrfs. Current updating device tree requires space from METADATA chunk, so we -may- need to do a recursive chunk allocation when adding/updating dev extent, that is where the deadlock comes from. If we use SYSTEM metadata to update device tree, we can avoid the recursive stuff. Reported-by: Jim Schutt

Hi I am hitting this Warning reproducible, the workload is a ceph osd, kernel ist 3.1.0-rc5. Best Regards, martin [ 5472.099766] ------------[ cut here ]------------ [ 5472.099833] WARNING: at fs/btrfs/inode.c:2193 btrfs_orphan_commit_root+0xb0/0xc0 [btrfs]() [ 5472.099838] Hardware name: MS-96B3 [ 5472.099842] Modules linked in: radeon ttm drm_kms_helper drm i2c_algo_bit psmouse sp5100_tco

I wanted to see how btrfs compares to other filesystems so I have been running bonnie++ on it. While the results are good(much faster then ext2) every once in awhile I get a kernel oops. I am testing on xubuntu 8.10 with the 2.6.27-7-686 kernel using the latest git sources. Most of the time the oops happens within 20min of running bonnie++ but sometimes it takes a few hours. This happens with and

If we have particularly full nodes, we could call btrfs_node_blockptr up to 32 times, which is 32 pairs of kmap/kunmap, which _sucks_. So go ahead and map the extent buffer while we look for readahead targets. Thanks, Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> --- fs/btrfs/ctree.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++-- 1 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git

The condition can be relaxed to accept also 0 which will delete unoccupied chunks and does not need space for the actual data relocation. Until there is an automatic empty chunk reclaim, we can use this as a last resort option under enospc. CC: Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz> --- Also needs progs update, but is not required for the

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 All, I believe that I can pretty reliably reproduce the BUG mentioned in the attached dmesg output. (This doesn''t mean that you can, but I''ll detail what I''ve done here.) [This BUG is the same one that I reported last night.] 1) Create a 2 GB dynamically expanding disk. 2) Attach it to a VirtualBox machine. 3) Start the

After running ceph on XFS for some time, I decided to try btrfs again. Performance with the current "for-linux-min" branch and big metadata is much better. The only problem (?) I''m still seeing is a warning that seems to occur from time to time: [87703.784552] ------------[ cut here ]------------ [87703.789759] WARNING: at fs/btrfs/inode.c:2103

Hello, I''m seeing a lot of warnings in dmesg with a BTRFS filesystem. I''m using the 3.1 kernel, I found a patch for these warnings ( http://marc.info/?l=linux-btrfs&m=131547325515336&w=2) <http://marc.info/?l=linux-btrfs&m=131547325515336&w=2>, but that patch has already been included in 3.1. Are there any other patches I can try? I''m using

Hi everyone, I''ve pushed out my current kernel git tree to a new branch called integration-test. This is meant for integration testing only and should not be run by anyone who doesn''t love crashes. I''ve pulled together a lot of important work from a lot of different people. It includes: The new inode number allocator Delayed inode and directory item updates Scrub,

I noticed a huge problem with the free space cache that was presenting as an early ENOSPC. Turns out when writing the free space cache out I forgot to take into account pinned extents and more importantly clusters. This would result in us leaking free space everytime we unmounted the filesystem and remounted it. I fix this by making sure to check and see if the current block group has a cluster

When trying to move my root to a btrfs filesystem, I found a missing feature (or a bug). It's not possible to create device files. To reproduce, run this on a btrfs filesystem: mknod test c 1 1 result: mknod: `test': Operation not permitted Frank