On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 05:01:02AM +0000, Duncan wrote: > Marc MERLIN posted on Mon, 01 May 2017 20:23:46 -0700 as excerpted: > > > Also, how is --mode=lowmem being useful? > > FWIW, I just watched your talk that's linked from the wiki, and wondered > what you were doing these days as I hadn't seen any posts from you here > for awhile. First, sorry for the late reply. Because you didn't Cc me in the answer, it went to a different folder where I only saw your replies now. Off topic, but basically I'm not dead or anything, I have btrfs working well enough to not mess with it further because I have many other hobbies :) that is unless I put a new SAS card in my server, hit some corruption bugs, and now I'm back spending days fixing the system.
> Well, that you're asking that question confirms you've not been following > the list too closely... Of course that's understandable as people have > other stuff to do, but just sayin'. That's exactly right. I'm subscribed to way too many lists on way too many topics to be up to date with all, sadly :( > Of course on-list I'm somewhat known for my arguments propounding the > notion that any filesystem that's too big to be practically maintained > (including time necessary to restore from backups, should that be > necessary for whatever reason) is... too big... and should ideally be > broken along logical and functional boundaries into a number of > individual smaller filesystems until such point as each one is found to > be practically maintainable within a reasonably practical time frame. > Don't put all the eggs in one basket, and when the bottom of one of those > baskets inevitably falls out, most of your eggs will be safe in other > baskets. =:^) That's a valid point, and in my case, I can back it up/restore, it just takes a bit of time, but most of the time is manually babysitting all those subvolumes that I need to recreate by hand with btrfs send/restore relationships, which all get lost during backup/restore. This is the most painful part. What's too big? I've only ever used a filesystem that fits on on a raid of 4 data drives. That value has increased over time, but I don't have a a crazy array of 20+ drives as a single filesystem, or anything. Since drives have gotten bigger, but not that much faster, I use bcache to make things more acceptable in speed. > *BUT*, and here's the "go further" part, keep in mind that subvolume-read- > only is a property, gettable and settable by btrfs property. > > So you should be able to unset the read-only property of a subvolume or > snapshot, move it, then if desired, set it again. > > Of course I wouldn't expect send -p to work with such a snapshot, but > send -c /might/ still work, I'm not actually sure but I'd consider it > worth trying. (I'd try -p as well, but expect it to fail...) That's an interesting point, thanks for making it. In that case, I did have to destroy and recreate the filesystem since btrfs check --repair was unable to fix it, but knowing how to reparent read only subvolumes may be handy in the future, thanks. 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