On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 07:52:29AM +0000, Duncan wrote: > > Right. So, why would you rebalance empty chunks or near empty chunks? > > Don't you want to rebalance almost full chunks first, and work you way > > to less and less full as needed? > > No, the closer to empty a chunk is, the more effect you can get in > rebalancing it along with others of the same fullness.
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 10:49:01PM +0000, Holger Hoffstätte wrote: > Maybe also add that as of 3.18 empty block groups are automatically > collected, so balancing to prevent ENOSPC-by-empty-chunks is no longer > necessary. This works pretty well; I haven't run balance in weeks, > and my total-vs.-used overhead has always been <10 GB. Sorry for the delay in confirming this. I've corrected both https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Balance_Filters#Balancing_to_fix_filesystem_full_errors and http://marc.merlins.org/perso/btrfs/post_2014-05-04_Fixing-Btrfs-Filesystem-Full-Problems.html with your input. Thanks much for that. Marc -- "A mouse is a device used to point at the xterm you want to type in" - A.S.R. Microsoft is to operating systems .... .... what McDonalds is to gourmet cooking Home page: http://marc.merlins.org/ | PGP 1024R/763BE901 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
