Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[Bug] Btrf-progs 4.8.3 raises errors with some params #1608

Closed
MFlyer opened this issue Jan 10, 2017 · 3 comments
Closed

[Bug] Btrf-progs 4.8.3 raises errors with some params #1608

MFlyer opened this issue Jan 10, 2017 · 3 comments
Milestone

Comments

@MFlyer
Copy link
Member

@MFlyer MFlyer commented Jan 10, 2017

To @schakrava & @phillxnet :

Ref to #1412 (comment) :

Current Centos official btrfs-progs is 4.4.1, while we're running 4.8.3.

Main btrfs-progs funcs seem ok, but some raise errors:

root@rockstone:rockstor# btrfs qgroup show /mnt2/Data/Test -F
qgroup.c:850: btrfs_qgroup_setup_filter: Assertion `set->filters[set->nfilters].filter_func != NULL` failed, value 0
btrfs[0x466ac4]
btrfs(btrfs_qgroup_setup_filter+0xdc)[0x466e3c]
btrfs[0x420609]
btrfs(main+0x82)[0x40f4a2]
/lib64/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xf5)[0x7f4dd6214b35]
btrfs[0x40f5a9]
Annullato

Downgrading to 4.4.1 same command (and others too) runs fine

Mirko

@MFlyer MFlyer changed the title [Bug] Btrf-progs 4.8.3 not fully compatible wtih Centos 7 1611 glibc [Bug] Btrf-progs 4.8.3 not fully compatible with Centos 7 1611 glibc Jan 10, 2017
@phillxnet
Copy link
Member

@phillxnet phillxnet commented Jan 10, 2017

@MFlyer Nice find this one by the way. Could this not just mean we need to recompile our btrfs-progs package? Don't know if elrepo (our kernel) have recompiled their kernel for the new glibc or if we might need to up this to ensure we get better compatibility with 1611, assuming they compile their newer kernels with the recently updated glibc. Not entirely sure how these play along with one another really but glibc is used everywhere.

Also I thought that mounted btrfs filesystems were dealt with via kernel code while unmounted btrfs was the domain of btrfs-progs. I guess one passes to the other depending on mount state. I had originally thought your centos post should have been with elrepo for this reason.

@MFlyer
Copy link
Member Author

@MFlyer MFlyer commented Jan 10, 2017

@schakrava && @phillxnet , after having some tests and source compiling :

root@rockstone:btrfs-progs-4.8.3# ./btrfs version
btrfs-progs v4.8.3
root@rockstone:btrfs-progs-4.8.3# ./btrfs qgroup show /mnt2/Data/Test/ --sort=qgroupid
qgroup.c:483: btrfs_qgroup_setup_comparer: Assertion `set->comps[set->ncomps].comp_func != NULL` failed, value 0
./btrfs[0x46367e]
./btrfs(btrfs_qgroup_setup_comparer+0x1e5)[0x464488]
./btrfs(btrfs_qgroup_parse_sort_string+0xc5)[0x465414]
./btrfs[0x419be0]
./btrfs(handle_command_group+0x5d)[0x40a493]
./btrfs(cmd_qgroup+0x15)[0x41a435]
./btrfs(main+0x155)[0x40a5ed]
/lib64/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xf5)[0x7fd7b0903b35]
./btrfs[0x40a1e9]
Annullato
root@rockstone:btrfs-progs-4.8.3# cd ../btrfs-progs-4.9/
root@rockstone:btrfs-progs-4.9# ./btrfs version
btrfs-progs v4.9
root@rockstone:btrfs-progs-4.9# ./btrfs qgroup show /mnt2/Data/Test/ --sort=qgroupid
WARNING: qgroup data inconsistent, rescan recommended
qgroupid         rfer         excl
--------         ----         ----
0/5          16.00KiB     16.00KiB
0/262        16.00KiB     16.00KiB
0/263        16.00KiB     16.00KiB
2015/1       20.03MiB     20.03MiB
2015/2       32.00KiB     32.00KiB
root@rockstone:btrfs-progs-4.9#

Can we move to 4.9? 😃 actually snapshots, scrubs & balances seem ok and no errors encountered on supervisored data_collector or rockstor logs

Update, if we want to have a smaller step: tested with btrfs-progs 4.8.4 too and ok, all issues seem to be 4.8.3 related

Mirko

@MFlyer MFlyer changed the title [Bug] Btrf-progs 4.8.3 not fully compatible with Centos 7 1611 glibc [Bug] Btrf-progs 4.8.3 raises errors with some params Feb 12, 2017
@schakrava schakrava added this to the Pinnacles milestone Mar 24, 2017
@MFlyer
Copy link
Member Author

@MFlyer MFlyer commented Apr 1, 2017

@schakrava & @phillxnet I'm closing this, now we are on latest 4.10.1 and it seems fine :)

Having latest btrfs probably will help having shares/pools/snapshots usage rewrite with better code (using some builtin btrfs funcs now working on 4.10.1)

Mirko

@MFlyer MFlyer closed this Apr 1, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
3 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.