similar to: 4 vol raid5 segfault on device delete

Hiya, is there any recommendation out there to setup a btrfs FS on top of hardware or software raid5 or raid6 wrt stripe/stride alignment? From mkfs.btrfs, it doesn''t look like there''s much that can be adjusted that would help, and what I''m asking might not even make sense for btrfs but I thought I''d just ask. Thanks, Stephane -- To unsubscribe from this

Chris and team, hats off on the RAID5/6 being at least experimental. I have been following your work for a year now, and waiting for these days. I am trying to get my head rapped around the architecture for BTRFS before I jump in and start recommending code changes to the branch. What I am trying to understand is the comments in the GIT commit which state: Read/modify/write is done after the

SAMSUNG SSD 830 Series CPU0: Intel® Core(TM) i7-2820QM CPU @ 2.30GHz (fam: 06, model: 2a, stepping: 07) 8GB RAM (quite heavily tested, not recently, with several days of memtest) kernel 3.11.1-200.fc19.x86_64 running on baremetal btrfs-progs-0.20.rc1.20130308git704a08c-1.fc19.x86_64 Today I did a scrub on a btrfs volume, with no message or errors in console or dmesg or journal. Immediately after

I made a btrfs on five disks using RAID5 (-d raid5 for mount option). When a power failure occurs, I can not remount btrfs after my system reboots. Dmesg for remount is presented as following: [ 192.713953] bio: create slab <bio-1> at 1 [ 192.716230] Btrfs loaded [ 192.717177] device fsid a0dff7ea-9354-43fd-8516-0e17f370991d devid 1 transid 6 /dev/sdb [ 192.717712] btrfs: disk space

Hi list, I am using kernel 3.9.0, btrfs-progs 0.20-rc1-253-g7854c8b. I have a three disk array of level single: # btrfs fi sh Label: none uuid: 2e905f8f-e525-4114-afa6-cce48f77b629 Total devices 3 FS bytes used 3.80TB devid 1 size 2.73TB used 2.25TB path /dev/sdd devid 2 size 2.73TB used 1.55TB path /dev/sdc devid 3 size 2.73TB used 0.00 path /dev/sdb

(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

Hi, I added a new drive to an existing RAID 0 array. Every attempt to rebalance the array fails: # btrfs filesystem balance /share/bd8 ERROR: error during balancing ''/share/bd8'' - Input/output error # dmesg | tail btrfs: found 1 extents btrfs: relocating block group 10752513540096 flags 1 btrfs: found 5 extents btrfs: found 5 extents btrfs: relocating block group 10751439798272

Doing this would reliably fail with -EBUSY for me: # mount /dev/sdb2 /mnt/scratch; umount /mnt/scratch; mkfs.btrfs -f /dev/sdb2 ... unable to open /dev/sdb2: Device or resource busy because mkfs.btrfs tries to open the device O_EXCL, and somebody still has it. Using systemtap to track bdev gets & puts shows a kworker thread doing a blkdev put after mkfs attempts a get; this is left over

Hello, I added a new disk into our RAID5 array, it looks like this: md2 : active raid5 sdd4[3] sde4[4] sda4[0] sdc4[2] sdb4[1] 3767274240 blocks level 5, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [5/5] [UUUUU] # btrfs fi sh Label: none uuid: 5534d2e7-be31-49c7-8ab7-90c5ab8afe18 Total devices 1 FS bytes used 2.24TB devid 3 size 2.63TB used 2.63TB path /dev/md2 # mount ... /dev/md2 on /home type btrfs

Fix that when scrub tries to repair an I/O or checksum error and one of the devices containing the mirror is missing, it crashes in bio_add_page because the bdev is a NULL pointer for missing devices. Reported-by: Marco L. Crociani <marco.crociani@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Stefan Behrens <sbehrens@giantdisaster.de> --- fs/btrfs/scrub.c | 7 +++++++ 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)

Changes v1-v2: - Remove restriction that BTRFS_IOC_GET_DEVICE_STATS is a privileged operation - Cast u64 to unsigned long long for printf() Changes v2-v3: - Rebased on Chris'' current master Changes v3-v4: - Add padding at end of ioctl structure Changes v4-v5: - The statistic members in the ioctl are now organized as an array of 64 bit values. Symbolic names for the array indexes

The goal is to detect when drives start to get an increased error rate, when drives should be replaced soon. Therefore statistic counters are added that count IO errors (read, write and flush). Additionally, the software detected errors like checksum errors and corrupted blocks are counted. An ioctl interface is added to get the device statistic counters. A second ioctl is added to atomically get

Greetings! I''m testing raid6, and recently added two drives. I haven''t been able to properly resume a balance operation: the number of total chunks is always too low. It seems that the balance starts and pauses properly, but always resumes with ~7 chunks. Here''s an example: vendikar tim # uname -r 3.10.0-031000rc4-generic vendikar tim # btrfs fi sho Label:

I have a 3 disk raid1 filesystem mounted with nodatacow. I have a folder in said filesystem with the ''C'' NOCOW & ''Z'' Not_Compressed flags set for good measure. I then copy in a large file and proceed to make random modifications. Filefrag shows no additional extents created, good so far. A big thank you to the those devs who got that working. However, after

What happened to the hot data tracking feature in btrfs? There are a lot of old patches from aug 2010, but it looks like the feature has been completly removed from the current version of btrfs. Is this feature still on the roadmap?

To make Btrfs code more robust, several return value checks where memory allocation can fail are introduced. I use BUG_ON where I don''t know how to handle the error properly, which increases the number of using the notorious BUG_ON, though. Signed-off-by: Yoshinori Sano <yoshinori.sano@gmail.com> --- fs/btrfs/compression.c | 6 ++++++ fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 2 ++

Hi, I''m getting an error when trying to delete a device from a raid1 (data and metadata mirrored). > btrfs filesystem show failed to read /dev/sr0 Label: none uuid: 78b5162b-489e-4de1-a989-a47b91adef50 Total devices 2 FS bytes used 107.64GB devid 2 size 149.05GB used 109.01GB path /dev/sdh1 devid 1 size 156.81GB used 109.03GB path /dev/sdb6 Btrfs v0.20-rc1 >

Hello all. What we have: SL6 - kernel 2.6.32-131.2.1.el6.x86_64 btrfs on mdadm RAID5 with 8 HDD - 27T partition. I see this at top: 1182 root 20 0 0 0 0 R 100.0 0.0 16:39.73 [btrfs-delalloc-] And LA is grow. What is this and how can I fix it? -- Best regards, Proskurin Kirill -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of

Hello all: I have two machines with btrfs, that give me the "blocked for more than 120 seconds" message. After that I cannot write anything to disk, i am unable to unmount the btrfs filesystem and i can only reboot with sysrq-trigger. It always happens when i write many files with rsync over network. When i used 3.2rc6 it happened randomly on both machines after 50-500gb of writes.

We discussed using the top bits of the chunk type field field to store a number of redundant disks -- so instead of RAID5, RAID6, etc., we end up with a single ''RAID56'' flag, and the amount of redundancy is stored elsewhere. This attempts it, but I hate it and don''t really want to do it. The type field is designed as a bitmask, and _used_ as a bitmask in a number of