similar to: “bio too big” regression and silent data corruption in 3.0

For quite a while, I''ve experienced oddities with snapshotted Firefox _CACHE_00?_ files, whose checksums (and contents) would change after the btrfs snapshot was taken, and would even change depending on how the file was brought to memory (e.g., rsyncing it to backup storage vs checking its md5sum before or after the rsync). This only affected these cache files, so I didn''t give

Hello, I''m using kernel 3.1.0 and I have both / and /home as btrfs. I used suspend to ram quite often and never had a problem, but yesterday I''ve suspended to get into a plane and when I resumed my /home was all about input/output errors. Reboot did not help either. My root (/) did not suffer any problems. Today I''ve upgraded btrfs-progs to latest GIT and tried scrub

Did something break.. ? we are not reporting raid type after balance. ----------- # btrfs fi df /btrfs Data, RAID0: total=2.00GB, used=2.03MB Data: total=8.00MB, used=0.00 System, RAID0: total=16.00MB, used=4.00KB System: total=4.00MB, used=0.00 Metadata, RAID0: total=2.00GB, used=216.00KB Metadata: total=8.00MB, used=4.00KB # btrfs bal /btrfs Done, had to relocate 5 out of 5 chunks # btrfs fi

The Wiki does not make it clear as to why adding a secondary device defaults to RAID1 metadata and RAID0 data. I bought two SSDs with the intention of doing a BTRFS RAID0 for my root. What is the difference between forcing RAID0 on metadata and data as opposed to the default behavior? Can anyone clarify that? Thank you for your time, Mario -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line

If there is no free space, the free space allocator will try to get space from the block group with the degenerated profile. For example, if there is no free space in the RAID1 block groups, the allocator will try to allocate space from the DUP block groups. And besides that, the space reservation has the similar behaviour: if there is no enough space in the space cache to reserve, it will reserve

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

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: #

While untar''ing an image to an sd card via a reader, I got the following bug. The system also has a btrfs root, and a whole swath of processes went into uninterruptable sleep. I was able to poke around via ssh and sysrq, and already had netconsole set up to capture the bug. Root fs is on /dev/sdi1, and /dev/sdj2 is the card reader which was the target of the untar. [29571.448889] sd

On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 8:16 PM, Rafael Avila de Espindola < rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> writes: > > >> So I am strongly against removing either non TLSDESC support of support > >> for the relaxations. > >> > > > > It's still pretty arguable. By default, compilers use General Dynamic > model

After running one too many times into “parent transid verify failed” that prevents a filesystem from being mounted, I found out how to adjust some system blocks so that the kernel could get past that check and mount the filesystem. In one case, I could get all the data I wanted from the filesystem; in another, many checksums failed and I ended up throwing it all away, so no guarrantees.

Hi Dongyang, Yan, When testing BTRFS with RAID 0 metadata on linux-3.3, we see discard ranges exceeding the end of the block device [1], potentially causing dataloss; when this occurs, filesystem writeback becomes catatonic due to continual resubmission. The reproducer is quite simple [2]. Hope this proves useful... Thanks, Daniel --- [1] attempt to access beyond end of device ram0: rw=129,

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Is it ( yet? ) possible to manipulate the allocation policy on a subvolume level instead of the fs level? For example, to make / use raid1, and /home use raid0? Or to have / allocated from an ssd and /home allocated from the giant 2tb hd. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -

How can I verify the read speed of a btrfs raid0 pair in archlinux.? I assume raid0 means striped activity in a paralleled mode at lease similar to raid0 in mdadm. How can I measure the btrfs read speed since it is copy-on-write which is not the norm in mdadm raid0.? Perhaps I cannot use the same approach in btrfs to determine the performance. Secondly, I see a methodology for raid10 using

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I''ve been unable to find anything definitive about what happens if I use RAID0 to join an SSD and HDD together with respect to performance (latency, throughput). The future is obvious (hot data tracking, using most appropriate device for the data, data migration). In my specific case I have a 250GB SSD and a 500GB HDD, and about 250GB of

Hi! I recently tried to mount a filesystem in RAID1 mode using loopback devices. I followed the instructions at [1]. Here''s exactly what I''ve done: $ dd if=/dev/zero of=raid1_0.img bs=1M count=500 $ dd if=/dev/zero of=raid1_1.img bs=1M count=500 $ mkfs.btrfs -m raid1 -d raid1 raid1_0.img raid1_1.img $ losetup /dev/loop0 raid1_0.img $ losetup /dev/loop1 raid1_1.img $ mount -t

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

Hi, I''m starting to play with btrfs on my new computer. I''m running Gentoo and have compiled the 2.6.31 kernel, enabling btrfs. Now I have 2 partitions (on 2 different sata disks) that are free for me to play with, each about 375 gb in size. I wanted to create a "raid1" volume using these two partitions, so I did: # mkfs.btrfs -d raid1 /dev/sda5 /dev/sdb5 # mount

If I do this on a Solaris 8, x86: tar xzf samba-2.0.7.tar.gz cd samba-2.0.7 mkdir OBJ/somedir cd OBJ/somedir ../../configure --prefix=/usr/someplace and then: make it doesn't mkdir "bin" for me, making it compile all the way until it is about to link bin/smbd. The linker gives me a message about not being able to find "bin/smbd" which is kind of misleading. 8-( Anyway,

I set the C (NOCOW) and z (Not_Compressed) flags on a folder but the extent counts of files contained there keep increasing. Said files are large and frequently modified but not changing in size. This does not happen when the filesystem is mounted with nodatacow. I''m using this as a workaround since subvolumes can''t be mounted with different options simultaneously. ie. one with

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi all, this is a new attempt to improve the output of the command "btrfs fi df". The previous attempt received a good reception. However there was no a general consensus about the wording. Moreover I still didn''t understand how btrfs was using the disks. A my first attempt was to develop a new command which shows how the disks