similar to: Kernel Modules

I''ve just pushed out a new integration branch to my git repo. This is purely bugfix patches -- there are no new features in this issue of the integration branch. I''ve got a stack of about a dozen more patches with new features in them still to go. I''ll be working on those tomorrow. As always, there''s minimal testing involved here, but it does at least compile on

Currently the resize command is under filesystem, and takes a path to the mounted filesystem. This seems wrong to me. Shouldn''t it be under device, and take a path to a device to resize? Otherwise, how can a resize operation when you have multiple devices make any sense? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to

Hallo, linux-btrfs, please delete the option "-L" (for labelling) in "mkfs.btrfs", in some configurations it doesn''t work as expected. My usual way: mkfs.btrfs -d raid0 -m raid1 /dev/sdb /dev/sdc /dev/sdd ... One call for some devices. Wenn I add the option "-L mylabel" then each device gets the same label, and therefore some other programs

Hi, My company is testing btrfs (kernel 2.6.38) on a slave MySQL database server with a 195Gb filesystem (of which about 123Gb is used). So far, we''re quite impressed with the performance. Our database loads are high, and if filesystem performance wasn''t good, MySQL replication wouldn''t be able to keep up and the slave latency would begin to climb. This though, is

Hallo, "never change a running system" ... For some months I run btrfs unter kernel 3.2.5 and 3.2.9, without problems. Yesterday I compiled kernel 3.3.4, and this morning I started the machine with this kernel. There may be some ugly problems. Copying something into the btrfs "directory" worked well for some files, and then I got error messages (I''ve not

I have a couple computers running 2.6.38 (Ubuntu Natty 2.6.38-8-generic), and on both of them "btrfs device scan" comes back with nothing other than "failed to read /dev/sr0" One computer has a btrfs RAID-1 volume, and the other has two separate btrfs filesystems. The results are the same whether the filesystems are mounted or not. Why is "btrfs device scan" not

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

Hallo, linux-btrfs, I can''t switch a running "btrfs filesystem balance ..." via ctrl z bg into the background, with other jobs this way works. The stopping command "ctrl z" doesn''t work. (may be on other keyboards it''s "ctrl y") What goes wrong? Viele Gruesse! Helmut -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line

Hi! The problem is that the BTRFS raid10 filesystem without any understandable cause refuses to mount. Here is dmesg output: [77847.845540] device label linux-btrfs-raid10 devid 3 transid 45639 /dev/sdc1 [77848.633912] btrfs: allowing degraded mounts [77848.633917] btrfs: enabling auto defrag [77848.633919] btrfs: use lzo compression [77848.633922] btrfs: turning on flush-on-commit [77848.658879]

Added linux-btrfs and Helmut Hullen, who seemed to experience hangs on a T23 with BTRFS as well, to Cc. Am Thursday 03 February 2011 schrieb Rafael J. Wysocki: > This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report > of regressions introduced between 2.6.36 and 2.6.37. > > The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions > introduced between

On Fri 07 January 2011 08:14:17 Hubert Kario wrote: > I''d suggest at least > mkfs.btrfs -m raid1 -d raid0 /dev/sdc /dev/sdd > if you really want raid0 I don''t fully understand -m or -d. Why would this make a truer raid0 that with no options? Is it necessary to use fdisk on new drives in creating a BTRFS multi-drive array? Or is this all that''s needed: #

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

Hallo, I''d like to get some explanations ... # btrfs filesystem show Label: ''MMedia'' uuid: 120b036a-883f-46aa-bd9a-cb6a1897c8d2 Total devices 3 FS bytes used 3.80TB devid 1 size 1.82TB used 1.29TB path /dev/sdg1 devid 3 size 1.81TB used 1.29TB path /dev/sdc1 devid 2 size 1.81TB used 1.28TB path /dev/sdb1 Btrfs Btrfs v0.19 # btrfs filesystem df /srv/MM

Hallo, linux-btrfs, I''m working with btrfs for some days. btrfs-progs-20101101, kernel 2.6.35.8 (both self compiled). First step: mkfs.btrfs /dev/sdd1 mount /dev/sdd1 /srv/MM for a 2 TByte partition, worked well. Copying about 1,5 TByte data to this partition worked well. Second step: btrfs device add /dev/sdc1 /srv/MM btrfs filesystem balance

Hello If I want to manage a complete disk with btrfs, what''s the "Best Practice"? Would it be best to create the btrfs filesystem on "/dev/sdb", or would it be better to create just one partition from start to end and then do "mkfs.btrfs /dev/sdb1"? Would the same recomendation hold true, if we''re talking about huge disks, like 4TB or so?

Hi there... I have kernel version 2.6.36.3, compiled with gcc 4.4.5, btrfstools version 0.19+20101101 I have a btrfs filesystem (/data) consisting of two 1TB hard disks, raid0. I added in another 1TB hard drive. root@X86-64:~# btrfs filesystem show failed to read /dev/sdh failed to read /dev/sdg failed to read /dev/sdf failed to read /dev/sde failed to read /dev/sr0 failed to read /dev/fd0u800

Is anyone here running Samba 3.0 successfully with an NT4 style domain, with the Samba box operating as the PDC? -- Jason A. Nunnelley JasonN.com is my website - all opinions expressed were mine at some point.

Hello On my HP Compaq dc5800 with Ubuntu 13.04 and their 3.8.0-19-lowlatency kernel, I''ve got quite some kernel traces in the syslog. You can find them below or at http://pastebin.com/bLXPBX67 (to avoid line breaks…). These kernel traces all begin with: WARNING: at fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c:921 __btrfs_write_out_cache+0x6b9/0x9a0 [btrfs]() Most of the time, it starts with: Call

On Tue, 25 Jun, at 01:09:47PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Not really... let's just document "make bios". There's preliminary documentation in doc/building.txt. -- Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center

Hallo, H. Peter, Du meintest am 25.06.13: >> We could probably fabricate a script of some sort to check for the >> required version of gnu-efi, and skip it if not found, unless the >> user explicitly requested that the EFI files be built, in which case >> we'd error out. >> >> Thoughts? > Not really... let's just document "make bios". By