On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 08:29:20AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 1:09 AM, Zygo Blaxell > <ce3g8...@umail.furryterror.org> wrote: > > > > I wouldn't try to use dedup on a kernel older than v4.1 because of these > > fixes in 4.1 and later: > > I would assume that these would be ported to the other longterm > kernels like 3.18 at some point?
I wouldn't assume anything. Backports seem to be kind of random. ;) I think most (all?) of the relevant patches do apply to v3.18, but I haven't tested this kernel very much since v4.0 became usable. > > Do dedup a photo or video file collection. Don't dedup > > a live database server on a filesystem with compression enabled...yet. > > LIkewise. Typically I just dedup the entire filesystem, so it sounds > like we're not quite there yet. Would it make sense to put this on > the wiki in the gotchas section? Sounds good. > > Using dedup and defrag at the same time is still a bad idea. The features > > work against each other > > You mentioned quite a bit about autodefrag. I was thinking more in > terms of using explicit defrag, as was done by dedup in the past. It > looks like duperemove doesn't actually do this, perhaps because it is > also considered unsafe these days. I wouldn't describe dedup+defrag as unsafe. More like insane. You won't lose any data, but running both will waste a lot of time and power. Either one is OK without the other, or applied to non-overlapping sets of files, but they are operations with opposite results. Explicit defrag always undoes dedup, so you never want to defrag a file after dedup has removed duplicate extents from it. The btrfs command-line tool doesn't check for shared extents in defrag, and neither does the kernel ioctl. Defrag before dedup is a more complex situation that depends on the dedup strategy of whichever dedup tool you are using. A file-based dedup tool doesn't have to care about extent boundaries, so you can just run defrag and then dedup--in that order. An extent-based dedup tool will become less efficient after defrag and some capabilities will be lost, e.g. it will not be able to dedup data between VM image files or other files on the host filesystem. Extents with identical content but different boundaries cannot be deduped. There are fewer opportunities to find duplicate extents because defrag combines smaller extents into bigger ones. A block-based dedup tool explicitly arranges the data into extents by content, so extents become entirely duplicate or entirely unique. This is different from what defrag does. If both are run on the same data they will disagree on physical data layout and constantly undo each other's work. When data is defragged, it appears in find-new output as "new" data (the same as if the data had been written to a file the usual way). An incremental dedup tool that integrates defrag and find-new at the same time has to carefully prevent itself from consuming its own output in an endless feedback loop. > Thanks, I was just trying to get a sense for where this was at. It > sounds like we're getting to the point where it could be used in > general, but for now it is probably best to run it manually on stuff > that isn't too busy. IMHO the kernel part of dedup as of v4.1 is in a better state than some other features, e.g. balance or resize. I can run dedup continuously for months without issues, but I plan for lockups and reboots every day when doing balances or resizes. :-/ > -- > Rich > -- > 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
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
