similar to: btrfs df confusion

Hello, I had a raid1 btrfs (540GB) on vanilla 3.6.3, a disk failed, and removed it at power off, plugged in a new one, partitioned it (to 110GB, by error), and added it to btrfs. I tried to remove the missing device, and it said "Input/output error" after a while. Next attempts simply gave "Invalid argument". I repartitioned, rebooted the system, and made the partition grow:

Hi All, the following patches implement the recursively snapshotting and deleting of a subvolume. To snapshot recursively you must pass the -R switch: # btrfs subvolume create sub1 Create subvolume ''./sub1'' # btrfs subvolume create sub1/sub2 Create subvolume ''sub1/sub2'' # btrfs subvolume snapshot -R sub1 sub1-snap Create a snapshot of

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

On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 8:40 AM, Goffredo Baroncelli <kreijack@gmail.com> wrote: >       filesystem resize [+/-]<size>[gkm]|max <filesystem> -filesystem resize [+/-]<size>[gkm]|max <filesystem> +filesystem resize [+/-]<size>[gkm]|max <dev> This command works on devices, not paths. >              Resize a filesystem identified by <path>.  The

I''ve filed this bug under util-linux, because I think wipefs isn''t deleting all btrfs metadata it could. But ultimately it appears to be a btrfs bug because nothing else sees the stale volume. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=889888#c15 btrfs-progs-0.20.rc1.20121017git92d9eec-1.fc18.x86_64 e2fs-progs-1.42.5-1.fc18.x86_64 kernel 3.7.1-2 Brand new 80GB virtual disk,

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

Hello, This is the second attempt to bring in cross subvolume reflinks into btrfs. The first attempt was NAKed due to missing vfs mount checks and a clear description of what btrfs subvolumes are and probably also why cross subvolume reflinks are ok in the case of btrfs. This version of the patch comes from David and is in SUSE kernels since a long time, so it is tested and working. The patch

-----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

Hello all, in IRC we had a discussion on how we could solve sending live subvolumes and how to send subvolumes without the need to administrate/keep old snapshots for incremental sends. One of the ideas was to introduce "sendshots", which are basically snapshots where no refs are counted for file data. This means, that when file data is changed in the sendshot origin, we do not consume

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

Can anybody tell me if quota information is journaled ? After bad-shutdown the quota info is correctly or I need run quotacheck ?

Hi Chris, this serie of patches updated the command "btrfs filesystem df". I update this command because it is not so easy to get the information about the disk usage from the command "fi df" and "fi show". This patch was the result of some discussions on the btrfs mailing list. Many thanks to all the contributors. From the man page (see 2nd patch): [...] The

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

Hi all, below a configuration for udev/initramfs which I propose to scan the block devices looking for a multi-volume btrfs filesystem. Btrfs has the capability to span a file-system on multiple device. In order to do that, the involved devices have to be "registered" in the kernel. In order to do that there are two options: # btrfs device scan <device> (or the old

Hi Li, >----Messaggio originale---- >Da: lizf@cn.fujitsu.com >Data: 30/11/2010 8.03 >A: <kreijack@libero.it> >Cc: <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org> >Ogg: Re: [PATCH 5/5] btrfs: Add ioctl to set snapshot readonly/writable > >Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: >> Hi Li, >> >> On Monday, 29 November, 2010, Li Zefan wrote: >>> This allows us to set

Thanks for the quick reply! But I still have problems with btrfsctl: > stat /dev/btrfs-control File: `/dev/btrfs-control'' Size: 0 Blocks: 0 IO Block: 4096 block special file Device: ch/12d Inode: 659848 Links: 1 Device type: a,3e Access: (0644/brw-r--r--) Uid: ( 0/ root) Gid: ( 0/ root) Access: 2010-01-09 11:31:15.757979602 +0100

Hi, using btrfs with LVM snapshots seems to be confusing /proc/mounts After mounting a snapshot of an original filesystem, the devicename of the original filesystem is overwritten with that of the snapshot in /proc/mounts. Steps to reproduce: arnd@kallisto:/mnt$ sudo mount /dev/vg0/original /mnt/original [ 107.041432] device fsid 5c3e8ca2-da56-4ade-9fef-103a6a8a70c2 devid 1 transid 4

Hi, Let me know if this is the wrong place to ask... I''m using Fedora 12 x86_64, mostly with the newer 21.6.32 kernel, and have a single btrfs filesystem within a 120Gb partition. I''d like to extend the space btrfs can use. One option is presumably add a new device to btrfs, but I was hoping to simple resize the existing partition to say 160Gb. With ext4 I might do

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

Hi all, I suffered a lot for the terrific performance of aptitude on a BTRFS filesystem. I don''t think that BTRFS is a slow filesystem, but it seems that some aptitude (or dpkg) patterns are capable to highlight the btrfs slowness in some corner case. In order to alleviate this problem, I wrote a small script which calls aptitude with the LD_PRELOAD libeatmyadata library. And now I