Am Tue, 31 Oct 2017 07:28:58 -0400 schrieb "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" <ahferro...@gmail.com>:
> On 2017-10-31 01:57, Marat Khalili wrote: > > On 31/10/17 00:37, Chris Murphy wrote: > >> But off hand it sounds like hardware was sabotaging the expected > >> write ordering. How to test a given hardware setup for that, I > >> think, is really overdue. It affects literally every file system, > >> and Linux storage technology. > >> > >> It kinda sounds like to me something other than supers is being > >> overwritten too soon, and that's why it's possible for none of the > >> backup roots to find a valid root tree, because all four possible > >> root trees either haven't actually been written yet (still) or > >> they've been overwritten, even though the super is updated. But > >> again, it's speculation, we don't actually know why your system > >> was no longer mountable. > > Just a detached view: I know hardware should respect > > ordering/barriers and such, but how hard is it really to avoid > > overwriting at least one complete metadata tree for half an hour > > (even better, yet another one for a day)? Just metadata, not data > > extents. > If you're running on an SSD (or thinly provisioned storage, or > something else which supports discards) and have the 'discard' mount > option enabled, then there is no backup metadata tree (this issue was > mentioned on the list a while ago, but nobody ever replied), because > it's already been discarded. This is ideally something which should > be addressed (we need some sort of discard queue for handling in-line > discards), but it's not easy to address. > > Otherwise, it becomes a question of space usage on the filesystem, > and this is just another reason to keep some extra slack space on the > FS (though that doesn't help _much_, it does help). This, in theory, > could be addressed, but it probably can't be applied across mounts of > a filesystem without an on-disk format change. Well, maybe inline discard is working at the wrong level. It should kick in when the reference through any of the backup roots is dropped, not when the current instance is dropped. Without knowledge of the internals, I guess discards could be added to a queue within a new tree in btrfs, and only added to that queue when dropped from the last backup root referencing it. But this will probably add some bad performance spikes. I wonder how a regular fstrim run through cron applies to this problem? -- Regards, Kai Replies to list-only preferred. -- 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
