Liu Bo wrote:
On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 5:26 PM, Liu Bo <obuil.liubo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 2:46 PM, Mike Stevens <michael.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Could you please paste the whole dmesg, it looks like it hit
btrfs_abort_transaction(),
which should give us more information about where goes wrong.
The whole thing is here https://pastebin.com/4ENq2saQ
Given this,
[ 299.410998] BTRFS: error (device sdag) in
btrfs_create_pending_block_groups:10192: errno=-27 unknown
it refers to -EFBIG, so I think the warning comes from
btrfs_add_system_chunk()
{
...
if (array_size + item_size + sizeof(disk_key)
> BTRFS_SYSTEM_CHUNK_ARRAY_SIZE) {
mutex_unlock(&fs_info->chunk_mutex);
return -EFBIG;
}
If that's the case, we need to check this earlier during mount.
I didn't realize this until now, we do have a limitation on up to how
many disks btrfs could handle, in order to make balance/scrub work
properly (where system chunks may be set readonly),
((BTRFS_SYSTEM_CHUNK_ARRAY_SIZE / 2) - sizeof(struct btrfs_chunk)) /
sizeof(struct btrfs_stripe) + 1
will be the number of disks btrfs can handle at most.
Am I understanding this correct, BTRFS have limit to the number of
physical devices it can handle?! (max 30 devices?!)
Or are this referring to the number of devices BTRFS can utilize in a
stripe (in which case 30 actually sounds like a high number).
30 devices is really not that much, heck you get 90 disks top load JBOD
storage chassis these days and BTRFS does sound like an attractive
choice for things like that.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
