Hi, sam tygier
> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-btrfs-ow...@vger.kernel.org
> [mailto:linux-btrfs-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of sam tygier
> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 4:42 PM
> To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: [PATCH] Btrfs: Check metadata redundancy on balance
>
> It was recommended that I resend after the merge window. No changes since
> last version.
>
> Currently BTRFS allows you to make bad choices of data and metadata levels.
> For example -d raid1 -m raid0 means you can only use half your total disk
> space,
> but will loose everything if 1 disk fails. It should give a warning in these
> cases.
>
> This patch is a follow up to
> [PATCH v2] btrfs-progs: check metadata redundancy in order to cover the case
> of using balance to convert to such a set of raid levels.
>
Can we check and show warning of balance operation in btrfs-progs,
just like above patch?
> A simple example to hit this is to create a single device fs, which will
> default to
> single:dup, then to add a second device and attempt to convert to raid1 with
> the command btrfs balance start -dconvert=raid1 /mnt this will result in a
> filesystem with raid1:dup, which will not survive the loss of one drive. I
> personally don't see why the tools should allow this, but in the previous
> thread
> a warning was considered sufficient.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sam Tygier <samtyg...@yahoo.co.uk>
>
> From: Sam Tygier <samtyg...@yahoo.co.uk>
> Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 18:13:06 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] Btrfs: Check metadata redundancy on balance
>
> When converting a filesystem via balance check that metadata mode is at least
> as redundant as the data mode. For example give warning
> when:
> -dconvert=raid1 -mconvert=single
> ---
> fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c index fbe7c10..a0ce1f7
> 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> @@ -3454,6 +3454,24 @@ static void __cancel_balance(struct btrfs_fs_info
> *fs_info)
> atomic_set(&fs_info->mutually_exclusive_operation_running, 0); }
>
> +static int group_profile_max_safe_loss(u64 flag) {
> + switch (flag & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_PROFILE_MASK) {
> + case 0: /* single */
> + case BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DUP:
> + case BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_RAID0:
> + return 0;
> + case BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_RAID1:
> + case BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_RAID5:
> + case BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_RAID10:
> + return 1;
> + case BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_RAID6:
> + return 2;
> + default:
> + return -1;
> + }
> +}
> +
Maybe btrfs_get_num_tolerated_disk_barrier_failures()
fits above request, better to use existence function if possible.
Thanks
Zhaolei
> /*
> * Should be called with both balance and volume mutexes held
> */
> @@ -3572,6 +3590,12 @@ int btrfs_balance(struct btrfs_balance_control
> *bctl,
> }
> } while (read_seqretry(&fs_info->profiles_lock, seq));
>
> + if (group_profile_max_safe_loss(bctl->meta.target) <
> + group_profile_max_safe_loss(bctl->data.target)){
> + btrfs_info(fs_info,
> + "Warning: metatdata has lower redundancy than data\n");
> + }
> +
> if (bctl->sys.flags & BTRFS_BALANCE_ARGS_CONVERT) {
> int num_tolerated_disk_barrier_failures;
> u64 target = bctl->sys.target;
> --
> 2.4.3
>
>
> --
> 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
--
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
