On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:31:24PM +0100, Lutz Vieweg wrote: > Hi again, > > I just did another test on resilience with btrfs/raid1, this time I tested > the following scenario: One out of two raid1 devices disappears. The > filesystem > is written to in degraded mode. The missing device re-appears (think of e.g. > a storage device that temporarily became unavailable due to a cable or > controller > issue that is later fixed). User issues "btrfs filesystem balance". > > Alas, this scenario ends in an effor "btrfs: 1 enospc errors during balance", > with the raid1 staying degraded. > > Here's the test procedure in detail: > > Testing was done using vanilla linux-3.12 (x86_64) > plus btrfs-progs at commit 9f0c53f574b242b0d5988db2972c8aac77ef35a9 > plus "[PATCH] btrfs-progs: for mixed group check opt before default raid > profile is enforced" > > Preparing two 100 MB image files: > > # dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/img1 bs=1024k count=100 > > 100+0 records in > > 100+0 records out > > 104857600 bytes (105 MB) copied, 0.201003 s, 522 MB/s > > > > # dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/img2 bs=1024k count=100 > > 100+0 records in > > 100+0 records out > > 104857600 bytes (105 MB) copied, 0.185486 s, 565 MB/s
For btrfs, this is *tiny*. I'm not surprised you've got ENOSPC problems here -- it's got nowhere to move the data to, even if you are using --mixed mode. I would recommend using larger sparse files for doing this, otherwise you're going to keep hitting ENOSPC errors instead of triggering actual bugs in device recovery: $ dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/img1 bs=1M count=0 seek=10240 That will give you a small file with a large apparent size. [...] > So far, so good. > Now since we know the filesystem is not really redundant, > we start a "balance": > > > # btrfs filesystem balance /mnt/tmp > > ERROR: error during balancing '/mnt/tmp' - No space left on device > > There may be more info in syslog - try dmesg | tail > > Syslog shows: > > kernel: btrfs: relocating block group 20971520 flags 21 > > kernel: btrfs: found 3 extents > > kernel: btrfs: relocating block group 4194304 flags 5 > > kernel: btrfs: relocating block group 0 flags 2 > > kernel: btrfs: 1 enospc errors during balance > > So the raid1 remains "degraded". > > BTW: I wonder why "btrfs balance" seems to require additional space > for writing data to the re-appeared disk. It's a copy-on-write filesystem: *every* modification of the FS requires additional space to write the new copy to. In your example here, the FS is so small, I'm surprised you could write anything to it all, due to metadata overheads. > I also wonder: Would btrfs try to write _two_ copies of > everything to _one_ remaining device of a degraded two-disk raid1? No. It would have to degrade from RAID-1 to DUP to do that (and I think we prevent DUP data for some reason). Hugo. > (If yes, then this means a raid1 would have to be planned with > twice the capacity just to be sure that one failing disk will > not lead to an out-of-diskspace situation. Not good.) > > Regards, > > Lutz Vieweg > -- === Hugo Mills: hugo@... carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk === PGP key: 65E74AC0 from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk --- Doughnut furs ache me, Omar Dorlin. ---
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
