Bug is stale/abandoned. Closing
** Changed in: linux (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Won't Fix
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Kernel
Packages, which is subscribed to linux in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1349711
Title:
Machine lockup in btrfs
The two upstream report links above via gmane now say "ArchivedAt Nothing found
- bye"
http://web.archive.org has no record of them.
Are updated links available? Did any discussion take place there?
I'm seeing INFO: task btrfs-transacti:979 blocked for more than 120
seconds. and wondering if it
I got "the connection used to fetch this resource is insecure" and I
never receive a response when sending the POST request to upload the
attachment on launchpad.net... I'll try again later
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Kernel
Packages, which is subscribed to l
With btrfs-tools 4.0-2, and kernel 4.2.0-34-generic, I got a kthread
pegging up 1 core at 100%, and the whole system was almost completely
unusable.
this persisted for several minutes. Then it quieted down, and then the
problem reappeared... even after rebooting.
I had 2GB of free space. I now fr
Peter, would you consider re-formatting your disk with recent btrfs-
tools, and using a 3.18+ Linux kernel? I think it's fair to assume that
or try if the problem would be resolved. And that would help you move
forward as well.
Consider how unstable older versions are warned to be:
"WARNING! - Bt
I'll agree with Tomasz -- running the 3.18.1 kernel I've had much better
experience with btrfs than with Trusty's stock 3.13.
** Bug watch added: Linux Kernel Bug Tracker #90401
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=90401
** Also affects: linux via
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.c
Personally for me, 3.18.x kernel was the first one where btrfs finally
behaves stable (so far).
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Kernel
Packages, which is subscribed to linux in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1349711
Title:
Machine lockup in btrfs-tran
That's my understanding too, except in one of the scenarios I observed
100% SYS CPU for long stretches even when there was a significant amount
(~50GB) of the device unused.
However, if it was a soft lockup it was for >8 hours, during which the
machine was totally unresponsive to HTTP requests, wh
So the way I read the thread, there is the (apparently better known for
developers than it is currently documented) basic problem with btrfs
that it can run out of space rather unexpectedly. I was a bit surprised
as well to read that 500MB (while looking like a whole lot of space
coming from using
Repost of what I sent to the mailing list just now:
My current interpretation of this problem is that it is some
pathological condition caused by not rebalancing and being nearly out
of space for allocating more metadata and hence it is rarely being
seen by anyone else (because most users are regu
The production machine hasn't had a lockup since moving to
3.15.7-031507-generic (it's been up for 4 days) even though we could
reproduce the lockup on a new machine with that kernel using a snapshot
of the old volume.
Another twist is that on the productino machine I'm now reliably seeing
"No spa
smb: Yeah, the system the filesystem was created on was PV, the device
name was xvd*. Now it's on HVM with xvd*.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Kernel
Packages, which is subscribed to linux in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1349711
Title:
Machine loc
Maybe different default options. I don't think a PV guest will know the
difference of the backing real device. Would those not all be just blkfront pv
block devices? Probably another detail we might be interested in here. If the
device name for the pv was xvd* then its a pv disk (not using ec2 t
The filesystem may have been originally created on an older version of
BTRFS from Ubuntu Saucy, which I suppose may not have detected the SSD?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Kernel
Packages, which is subscribed to linux in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs
Hm, odd. To get a similar output to "btrfs fi df ", I have to add
-m dup (otherwise I have no DUP lines for system and metadata). And
especially the metadata-dup was relatively high in use 4.65GiB of
5.50GiB on the output you showed us yesterday.
--
You received this bug notification because you
btrfs was created with `mkfs.btrfs /dev/mapper/vg-lv`.
It isn't a hard requirement except that it's a pain to migrate since
that requires downtime to move the files. Something I'd rather not do
unless absolutely necessary. The machine freezes are inconvenient but
represent a few minutes downtime i
It is hard to say for sure. I would not know the details of EC2 guest
setup. The block device could be local but more likely is some form of
network attachment (iscsi, ndb). And btrfs is still a newer kid on the
block. So there still might be surprises just because of that.
You description was abo
(otherwise unloaded test machines)
On a dual core machine, 100% system CPU usage with zero writes is seen
on one core for 5-10 minutes, spending time in BTRFS threads.
On a single thread machine 100% system CPU is used and I haven't yet
been able to cause it to hang entirely. I do observe almost
Hm, I'm not sure I can give a thorough description since I don't
understand enough about the exact workload myself. It is a fairly
arbitrary workload generated by our users.
In the end, it boils down to creating, reading and writing many
(~20,000) sqlite files of size 16kb - 12GB across many fold
So at this point it would be good to have a clear idea of how to get into this
state to better understand the issue.
Could you write a detailed description of how you setup your machine/volume,
then others can try to run a similar test here and see if we can reproduce the
same results?
Thanks,
Peter also tested on a single core machine and was able to reproduce the
issue.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Kernel
Packages, which is subscribed to linux in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1349711
Title:
Machine lockup in btrfs-transaction
Status
>From IRC, an example of a testcase:
1) create around ~300GB of small files (sqlite files for example), put the
files into a list sqlite-files.txt
2) Start the copy:
cat sqlite-files.txt | xargs -n1 -I{} -P2 sudo sh -c 'rm -f {}.new; cat {} >
{}.new; echo {}'
3) When it hangs, identify where it
** Tags added: kernel-bug-exists-upstream
** Changed in: linux (Ubuntu)
Status: Incomplete => Confirmed
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Kernel
Packages, which is subscribed to linux in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1349711
Title:
Machine lock
This gist contains a stack trace every 10 seconds taken with `echo l >
/proc/sysrq-trigger` whilst the machine was spinning in the kernel but
still responsive.
https://gist.github.com/pwaller/c7dd0f4807459acedcdf
The machine remained responsive for 5-10 minutes before becoming totally
unresponsiv
Now reproduced on 3.16. I'm out of things to try for now.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Kernel
Packages, which is subscribed to linux in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1349711
Title:
Machine lockup in btrfs-transaction
Status in “linux” package in
I've got a way to rapidly reproduce the error now. I can do it reliably
with a turnaround time of 5-10 minutes.
I've reproduced the crash on the new Kernel, so it has now been observed
on both 3.13.0-32-generic and 3.15.7-031507-generic. I'll try 3.16
next.
I've also discovered this new stack tr
I found an additional stack trace from a previous machine lockup.
[1093202.136107] INFO: task kworker/u30:1:31455 blocked for more than 120
seconds.
[1093202.141596] Tainted: GF3.13.0-30-generic #54-Ubuntu
[1093202.146201] "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disab
One thing I am unsure of is that the bug did not manifest for at least
12 days running originally. So I'm not sure it is going to be possible
to reliably decide that it is fixed by moving to a particular kernel.
What is the standard here?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a me
The crashes became more frequent. The approximate time was >12 days
running, then ~2 days running, then 6 hours, then 1 hour.
I since moved to 3.15.7-031507-generic.
One thing I have observed is that (EXT4 filesystem)
/var/log/nginx/access.log contained ~2KB of NULL characters in place of
any ent
Would it be possible for you to test the latest upstream kernel? Refer
to https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelMainlineBuilds . Please test the latest
v3.16 kernel[0].
If this bug is fixed in the mainline kernel, please add the following
tag 'kernel-fixed-upstream'.
If the mainline kernel does not fix t
@brad-figg, apologies I missed your response. Is there a way to generate
the output without automatically uploading it? I would like to review it
first. I tried `apport-cli --save` but that doesn't do anything unless
there are any crash files that I can tell.
--
You received this bug notification
I've also started a thread on linux-btrfs:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/37224
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Kernel
Packages, which is subscribed to linux in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1349711
Title:
Machine lockup in bt
32 matches
Mail list logo
