similar to: ANNOUNCE: libguestfs 1.22 has been released

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 6000 matches similar to: "ANNOUNCE: libguestfs 1.22 has been released"

2017 Jul 29
2
Re: cannot find any suitable libguestfs supermin
2017-07-29 0:20 GMT+08:00 Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@redhat.com>: > > You need to download this appliance: > > http://download.libguestfs.org/binaries/appliance/ > appliance-1.36.1.tar.xz > > and unpack it under /home/user/appliance/ . > > Directly inside the /home/user/appliance directory you should see > files called "initrd", "kernel",
2017 Jul 28
2
cannot find any suitable libguestfs supermin
I download libguestfs from github and fetch to the *origin master*. I tried to build libguestfs in my own linux distro and I followd the http://libguestfs.org/guestfs-building.1.html#using-a-prebuilt-binary-appliance to replace with supermin I download the appliance-1.30.1.tar.xz and appliance-1.30.1.tar.xz.sig and extract the tarball to /home/user/appliance and export
2013 May 21
0
Plan for libguestfs 1.22
It has been 5 months since the last stable release of libguestfs and over that time we've accumulated many exciting new features: http://libguestfs.org/guestfs-release-notes.1.html#release-notes-for-libguestfs-1.22 It's time to plan for the release of libguestfs 1.22. As usual, bugs which have "1.22" (without quotes) in the devel whiteboard field are nominated as blockers for
2010 May 27
3
btrfsck: doesn't correct errors
Heyho! (This is using btrfs from Debian''s 2.6.32 2.6.32-3-kirkwood kernel (-9 package; btrfs tools is v0.19-16-g075587c) A few observations about btrfsck: a btrfsck run on a 2T volume (4 disks) on a QNAP appliance (512M ram) got killed by Mr. OOM Killer. Initially, I was quite surprised. I''m only moderately surprised now since it might well be that I forgot to enable
2010 Dec 01
12
Fsck, parent transid verify failed
Hi folks! Been using btrfs for quite a while now, worked great until now. Got power-loss on my machine and now i have the "parent transid verify failed on X wanted X found X" problem. So I can''t get it to mount. My btrfs is spread over sda (2tb), sdc(2tb), sdd(1tb). Is this something that an offline fsck could fix ? If so is the fsck-util being developed ? Is there a way to
2011 May 30
5
Damaged super block / fs root
I have accidently damaged the first block(s) of a btrfs partition and can''t mount it anymore. I can see that my data is still intact by running a command like: cat /dev/sda5 | hexdump -C | more Do any (experimental) tools exist which would allow me to recover the files? Thank you -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a
2009 Jun 11
6
cleanup after a small data loss on incorrect shutdown.
Hello. I am continuing my tests of BtrFS under a practical workload. Recently an incorrect poweroff (or maybe a small bug in BtrFS) caused a small data loss. The actual damage was non-existent. I used old branch, so maybe the relevant code is already improved. 1. Why btrfsck says "bad block" on that partition? What does it mean? My fist reaction was to use badblocks. It found no
2013 Apr 15
8
[PATCH] btrfs-progs: No-op when called as fsck.btrfsck
Hi, I thought that I would attempt a quick little patch that will make btrfsck into a No-op when called as fsck.btrfsck. The reasoning is that the FAQ states that it is recommended and safe to do so, and the current 12.04 version of Ubuntu just symlinks fsck.btrfsck to btrfsck instead of /bin/true. PS - Apologies if I mess this git send-email up! Dan McGrath (1): btrfs-progs: No-op when
2013 Mar 16
6
multiple btrfsck runs
Is it expected that running btrfsck more than once will keep reporting errors? Below is the end of a btrfsck output when run the second time. backpointer mismatch on [111942471680 32768] owner ref check failed [111942471680 32768] ref mismatch on [111942504448 40960] extent item 1, found 0 Incorrect local backref count on 111942504448 root 5 owner 160739 offset 3440640 found 0 wanted 1 back
2013 Mar 26
15
Kernel bug on mismatching generation_v2 in inode.c:835
Dear list members, In my previous thread at http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org/msg23333.html there was a space_cache kernel bug/panic on kernel 3.8. I could successfully "fix" that with rebuilding the cache. But some files were missing/corrupted. So I booted a rescue CD with kernel 3.7 and ran btrfsck --repair, which repaired quite a few things. After a reboot I
2013 Jan 29
8
[RFC] Move btrfsck in to the btrfs command
NOTE: in order to apply this patch you should: git mv btrfsck.c cmd-fsck.c This patch moves btrfsck in to "btrfs fsck". It also adds support for symlinks to the btrfs binary to retain compablity, =) I think something should be done to the help description but i''m not sure what... Anyway, feedback is welcome. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
2012 Jul 17
1
Unmountable btrfs filesystem
Hi devs, I can''t mount my btrfs-based external disk. I don''t know what happened to the disk, but usually it gets disconnected (usb cable pulled out) buy my 8 months old daughter. Here''s the output from dmesg: [ 299.699543] parent transid verify failed on 528952573952 wanted 22726 found 22728 [ 299.700947] btrfs read error corrected: ino 1 off 528952573952 (dev
2013 Jun 17
5
Filesystem "somewhat" destroyed - need help for recovery/fixing
Hello I think, I somewhat destroyed my btrfs filesystem on my Ubuntu 13.04 kernel 3.8.0-25-lowlatency system. It got destroyed, because the system was hanging for some other reason and I had to remove power... When I try to mount my filesystem (there''s only one, with a few subfilesystems), the system crashes. Also btrfsck dies; always like this: a@ask-home:~$ sudo
2011 Feb 17
7
Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 29302] New: Null pointer dereference with large max_sectors_kb
(switched to email. Please respond via emailed reply-to-all, not via the bugzilla web interface). On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 13:20:20 GMT bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org wrote: > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=29302 > > Summary: Null pointer dereference with large max_sectors_kb > Product: IO/Storage > Version: 2.5 > Kernel
2013 Apr 07
4
[BUG] btrfs.fsck failing to fix corrupted block
Hi there, I am newbie and recently started using btrfs. Now facing a weird problem. FWIW, I am on archlinux, kenel v3.8.0, having Btrfs v0.20-rc1. After an abnormal reboot, getting these errors while boot: systemd.fsck[289]: checking extents systemd.fsck[289]: checking fs roots systemd.fsck[289]: checking root refs systemd.fsck[289]: found 23728128 bytes used err is 0 systemd.fsck[289]: total
2013 Jan 03
4
btrfsck: extent-tree.c:2549: btrfs_reserve_extent: Assertion `!(ret)' failed.
Hi All, I''m trying to repair a broken fs using btrfsck and am hitting a failed assertion. I''d appreciate any suggestions for what to do next. Is there any thing I can do to help fix this bug? Any other information from my FS which would help? If the FS could be salvaged that would be a bonus, but I''m more interested in providing a useful bug report before wiping the
2012 Apr 12
4
Btrfs Array Recovery
A few months ago, my btrfs storage array became corrupted because of a power failure. A while ago, I made this thread to try and resolve the problem. (http://www.digipedia.pl/usenet/thread/11904/15955/) You can find detailed information about the problem in the previous thread, but I am happy to provide any other details. It didn''t really go anywhere in the way of solving my problem. The
2011 Jun 06
2
Re: New btrfsck status
Chris Mason on 10 Feb 13:17: > Excerpts from Ben Gamari''s message of 2011-02-09 21:52:20 -0500: > > Over the last several months there have been many claims regarding > > the release of the rewritten btrfsck. Unfortunately, despite > > numerous claims that it will be released Real Soon Now(c), I have > > yet to see even a repository with preliminary code. Did I
2011 Dec 07
7
FS won't mount, open_ctree failed, Assertion !(path->slots[0] == 0) failed
So I''m having a bit of trouble with one of my btrfs filesystems. It isn''t mounting after a power failure. I can''t get restore or btrfsck to run, even on backup supers. I''ve pasted some output below. My btrfs-progs below come from git this morning, running on linux 3.2.0. # mount /dev/md2 /media/test/ mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on
2013 Dec 02
3
[PATCH 1/3] btrfs-progs: Turning ON incompat isn't an error
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com> --- mkfs.c | 3 +-- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/mkfs.c b/mkfs.c index de1beed..0843600 100644 --- a/mkfs.c +++ b/mkfs.c @@ -1196,8 +1196,7 @@ static void process_fs_features(u64 flags) for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(mkfs_features); i++) { if (flags & mkfs_features[i].flag) { - fprintf(stderr,