On 03/05/16 18:25, Marc Haber wrote: > On Sat, Mar 05, 2016 at 04:38:57PM +0100, Holger Hoffstätte wrote: >> On 03/05/16 15:17, Marc Haber wrote: >>>> Then try to balance in small increments. >>> >>> -dusage=5 and incrementing? Or what do you mean with "in small >>> increments"? >> >> Exactly, yes. Sorry for not being more clear. > > So you would recommend something along > > for nr in $(seq 5 5 100); do > btrfs balance start -dusage=$nr $FS > done > > right?
Except for the 100 part, which seems pointless. Maybe more like 10,20..80 max. If that doesn't help you are probably out of space anyway. > Won't this take ages longer than a straight unfiltered balance? Touching less stuff conditionally is pretty much guaranteed to be faster than unconditionally rewriting everything, and less likely to end up out of space since you garbage-collect the smallest chunks first, freeing up a larger one and so on. > md as in the Linux Software RAID? That's not in the game here, it's a > single SATA hard disk. I thought your df output contained md or something. If not, all the better. -h -- 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
