similar to: More performance fixes pushed out to btrfs-unstable

Hi, I've recently benchmarked btrfs v0.11 & v0.12 against ext2, ext3, ext4, jfs, reiserfs and xfs. OS: Ubuntu Hardy Kernel: 2.6.24(-5-server) Hardware: --------- Fu-Si Primergy RX330 S1 * AMD Opteron 2210 1.8 GHz * 1 GB RAM * 3 x 73 GB, 3Gb/s, hot plug, 10k rpm, 3.5" SAS HDD * LSI RAID 128 MB Fu-Si Econel 200 * Intel Xeon 5110 * 512 MB RAM

Hello everyone, Btrfs v0.10 is now available for download from: http://oss.oracle.com/projects/btrfs/ Btrfs is still in an early alpha state, and the disk format is not finalized. v0.10 introduces a new disk format, and is not compatible with v0.9. The core of this release is explicit back references for all metadata blocks, data extents, and directory items. These are a crucial building

Hello everyone, Btrfs v0.10 is now available for download from: http://oss.oracle.com/projects/btrfs/ Btrfs is still in an early alpha state, and the disk format is not finalized. v0.10 introduces a new disk format, and is not compatible with v0.9. The core of this release is explicit back references for all metadata blocks, data extents, and directory items. These are a crucial building

Hello everyone, I wasn't planning on releasing v0.12 yet, and it was supposed to have some initial support for multiple devices. But, I have made a number of performance fixes and small bug fixes, and I wanted to get them out there before the (destabilizing) work on multiple-devices took over. So, here's v0.12. It comes with a shiny new disk format (sorry), but the gain is

A user reported that fsck was complaining about unresolved refs for some snapshots. You can reproduce this by doing mkfs.btrfs /dev/sdb mount /dev/sdb /mnt btrfs subvol snap /mnt/ /mnt/a btrfs subvol snap /mnt/ /mnt/b btrfs subvol del /mnt/a umount /mnt btrfsck /dev/sdb and you''d get this unresolved ref root 258 dir 256 index 2 namelen 1 name a error 600 because snapshot b has a dir

Parents must be same after going through ref_for_same_block. Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com> --- fs/btrfs/backref.c | 6 ------ 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/backref.c b/fs/btrfs/backref.c index f318793..9aaa38e6 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/backref.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/backref.c @@ -469,11 +469,6 @@ static int __merge_refs(struct list_head

I''ve upgraded to linux 3.10 and enabled extended inode refs and skinny metadata extent refs with these commands: btrfstune -r /dev/sdc1 btrfstune -x /dev/sdc1 Since then, I have "WARNING: at fs/btrfs/backref.c:903 find_parent_nodes+0x616/0x815 [btrfs]()" showing up like crazy: # grep -c "WARNING: at fs/btrfs/backref.c:903" syslog 181819 That''s after just

People kept reporting NFS issues, specifically getting ESTALE alot. I figured out how to reproduce the problem SERVER mkfs.btrfs /dev/sda1 mount /dev/sda1 /mnt/btrfs-test <add /mnt/btrfs-test to /etc/exports> btrfs subvol create /mnt/btrfs-test/foo service nfs start CLIENT mount server:/mnt/btrfs /mnt/test cd /mnt/test/foo ls SERVER echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches CLIENT ls

From: Rock <zimilo@code-trick.com> --- fs/btrfs/backref.c | 10 ++-- fs/btrfs/qgroup.c | 16 +++--- fs/btrfs/send.c | 2 +- fs/btrfs/ulist.c | 154 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- fs/btrfs/ulist.h | 45 ++++++++++++--- 5 files changed, 161 insertions(+), 66 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/backref.c b/fs/btrfs/backref.c index ff6475f..a5bebc8

Hello everyone, I've just pushed out a large change to btrfs-unstable adding extent back pointers. These will be a big part of online fsck, and migrating blocks around in storage pools as devices change. This is a disk format change for both the progs and the kernel. It does have a small performance impact, but the gain in features is well worth it. I've documented how the back

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

Hi everyone, I''ve pushed out my current kernel git tree to a new branch called integration-test. This is meant for integration testing only and should not be run by anyone who doesn''t love crashes. I''ve pulled together a lot of important work from a lot of different people. It includes: The new inode number allocator Delayed inode and directory item updates Scrub,

This fixes up the progs to properly deal with skinny metadata. This adds the -x option to mkfs and btrfstune for enabling the skinny metadata option. This also makes changes to fsck so it can properly deal with the skinny metadata entries. Thanks, Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com> --- V2->V3: update the mkfs.btrfs man page with the new option This is based on

moved the node-,leaf-,sectorsize from btrfs_root to btrfs_fs_info since we don''t intend to allow different sizes between trees also removed sectorsize from btrfs_block_group_cache because it now can use the one in fs_info updated all uses accordingly please note in disk-io.c: -static int __setup_root(nodesize, leafsize, sectorsize, stripesize, - *root,

I''ve enabled "extended inode refs" and "skinny metadata extent refs" with btrfstune. Then, I''ve tried running "btrfs filesystem balance" - unfortunately it segfaulted. (not sure if I should run balance operation after using btrfstune with -r and -x)? This is with 3.10 kernel with "Btrfs: make backref walking code handle skinny metadata"

Hello everyone, btrfs-unstable now has Yan Zheng''s fallocate support, along with disk format changes. I was hoping to roll all of this into a single format change with the compression code, but there was too much conflict between the two patches. The fallocate work is pretty neat, it allows preallocation of extents and overwrites them without triggering COW as long as there are no

>From 03115f064be2e074d84f4e2105d2cdebde10f6ba Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Yi Yang <yi.y.yang at intel.com> Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 14:53:50 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] Use a general way to get the default subvolume for btrfs --- extlinux/btrfs.h | 105 +++++++++++++++++++ extlinux/main.c | 304 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ 2 files changed, 377 insertions(+),

Hello, Trying to put together a list of TODO items for btrfs so we can update the wiki page fully. So far these things are on the list * Proper ENOSPC handling * O_DIRECT support (without checksumming) * AIO support * Subvolume quotas and inherited space usage information * Snapshot removal * QA Suite for automated regression testing * Reserved space for online fsck and the ability to add

While testing raid-auto-repair patches I''m going to send out later, I just found the very last bug in my current scrub patch series: Changelog v4->v5: - fixed a deadlock when fixup is taking longer while scrub is about to end Original message follows: ------------------------ This patch set introduces two new features for scrub. They share the backref iteration code which is the

I''m running into a problem with the btrfs-cleaner thread becoming blocked on xfstests 068. The test locks up indefinitely without completing (normally it finished in about 45 seconds on my test box). I''ve replicated the issue on 3.10.0_rc5 and the for-linus branch of 3.9.0. I ran a git bisect on the 3.9.0 for-linus branch, and tracked my issue to the following commit: commit