Hi,
last week I had the same problem on a btrfs filesystem after updating to
kernel 5.10.1. I have never had this problem before kernel 5.10.x.
5.9.x did now show any problem.
Dec 14 22:30:59 xxx kernel: BTRFS info (device sda2): scrub: started on
devid 1
Dec 14 22:31:09 xxx kernel: BTRFS info (device sda2): scrub: finished on
devid 1 with status: 0
Dec 14 22:33:16 xxx kernel: BTRFS info (device sda2): balance: start
-dusage=10
Dec 14 22:33:16 xxx kernel: BTRFS info (device sda2): relocating block
group 71694286848 flags data
Dec 14 22:33:16 xxx kernel: BTRFS info (device sda2): found 1058
extents, stage: move data extents
Dec 14 22:33:16 xxx kernel: BTRFS info (device sda2): balance: ended
with status: -2
This is not a multidevice volume but a volume consisting of a single
partition.
xxx ~ # btrfs fi df /u00
Data, single: total=10.01GiB, used=9.24GiB
System, single: total=4.00MiB, used=16.00KiB
Metadata, single: total=2.76GiB, used=1.10GiB
GlobalReserve, single: total=47.17MiB, used=0.00B
xxx ~ # btrfs device usage /u00
/dev/sda2, ID: 1
Device size: 19.81GiB
Device slack: 0.00B
Data,single: 10.01GiB
Metadata,single: 2.76GiB
System,single: 4.00MiB
Unallocated: 7.04GiB
On 12/27/20 1:11 PM, Stéphane Lesimple wrote:
Hello,
As part of the maintenance routine of one of my raid1 FS, a few days ago I was
in the process
of replacing a 10T drive with a 16T one.
So I first added the new 16T drive to the FS (btrfs dev add), then started a
btrfs dev del.
After a few days of balancing the block groups out of the old 10T drive,
the balance aborted when around 500 GiB of data was still to be moved
out of the drive:
Dec 21 14:18:40 nas kernel: BTRFS info (device dm-10): relocating block group
11115169841152 flags data|raid1
Dec 21 14:18:54 nas kernel: BTRFS info (device dm-10): found 6264 extents,
stage: move data extents
Dec 21 14:19:16 nas kernel: BTRFS info (device dm-10): balance: ended with
status: -2
Of course this also cancelled the device deletion, so after that the
device was still part of the FS. I then tried to do a balance manually,
in an attempt to reproduce the issue:
Dec 21 14:28:16 nas kernel: BTRFS info (device dm-10): balance: start
-ddevid=5,limit=1
Dec 21 14:28:16 nas kernel: BTRFS info (device dm-10): relocating block group
11115169841152 flags data|raid1
Dec 21 14:28:29 nas kernel: BTRFS info (device dm-10): found 6264 extents,
stage: move data extents
Dec 21 14:28:46 nas kernel: BTRFS info (device dm-10): balance: ended with
status: -2
There were of course still plenty of room on the FS, as I added a new 16T drive
(a btrfs fi usage is further down this email), so it struck me as odd.
So, I tried to lower the reduncancy temporarily, expecting the balance of this
block group to
complete immediately given that there were already a copy of this data present
on another drive:
Dec 21 14:38:50 nas kernel: BTRFS info (device dm-10): balance: start
-dconvert=single,soft,devid=5,limit=1
Dec 21 14:38:50 nas kernel: BTRFS info (device dm-10): relocating block group
11115169841152 flags data|raid1
Dec 21 14:39:00 nas kernel: BTRFS info (device dm-10): found 6264 extents,
stage: move data extents
Dec 21 14:39:17 nas kernel: BTRFS info (device dm-10): balance: ended with
status: -2
That didn't work.
I also tried to mount the FS in degraded mode, with the drive I wanted to
remove missing,
using btrfs dev del missing, but the balance still failed with the same error
on the same block group.
So, as I was running 5.10.1 just for a few days, I tried an older kernel:
5.6.17,
and retried the balance once again (with still the drive voluntarily missing):
[ 413.188812] BTRFS info (device dm-10): allowing degraded mounts
[ 413.188814] BTRFS info (device dm-10): using free space tree
[ 413.188815] BTRFS info (device dm-10): has skinny extents
[ 413.189674] BTRFS warning (device dm-10): devid 5 uuid
068c6db3-3c30-4c97-b96b-5fe2d6c5d677 is missing
[ 424.159486] BTRFS info (device dm-10): balance: start
-dconvert=single,soft,devid=5,limit=1
[ 424.772640] BTRFS info (device dm-10): relocating block group 11115169841152
flags data|raid1
[ 434.749100] BTRFS info (device dm-10): found 6264 extents, stage: move data
extents
[ 477.703111] BTRFS info (device dm-10): found 6264 extents, stage: update data
pointers
[ 497.941482] BTRFS info (device dm-10): balance: ended with status: 0
The problematic block group was balanced successfully this time.
I balanced a few more successfully (without the -dconvert=single option),
then decided to reboot under 5.10 just to see if I would hit this issue again.
I didn't: the btrfs dev del worked correctly after the last 500G or so data
was moved out of the drive.
This is the output of btrfs fi usage after I successfully balanced the
problematic block group under the 5.6.17 kernel. Notice the multiple
data profile, which is expected as I used the -dconvert balance option,
and also the fact that apparently 3 chunks were allocated on new16T for
this, even if only 1 seem to be used. We can tell because this is the
first and only time the balance succeeded with the -dconvert option,
hence these chunks are all under "data,single":
Overall:
Device size: 41.89TiB
Device allocated: 21.74TiB
Device unallocated: 20.14TiB
Device missing: 9.09TiB
Used: 21.71TiB
Free (estimated): 10.08TiB (min: 10.07TiB)
Data ratio: 2.00
Metadata ratio: 2.00
Global reserve: 512.00MiB (used: 0.00B)
Multiple profiles: yes (data)
Data,single: Size:3.00GiB, Used:1.00GiB (33.34%)
/dev/mapper/luks-new16T 3.00GiB
Data,RAID1: Size:10.83TiB, Used:10.83TiB (99.99%)
/dev/mapper/luks-10Ta 7.14TiB
/dev/mapper/luks-10Tb 7.10TiB
missing 482.00GiB
/dev/mapper/luks-new16T 6.95TiB
Metadata,RAID1: Size:36.00GiB, Used:23.87GiB (66.31%)
/dev/mapper/luks-10Tb 36.00GiB
/dev/mapper/luks-ssd-mdata 36.00GiB
System,RAID1: Size:32.00MiB, Used:1.77MiB (5.52%)
/dev/mapper/luks-10Ta 32.00MiB
/dev/mapper/luks-10Tb 32.00MiB
Unallocated:
/dev/mapper/luks-10Ta 1.95TiB
/dev/mapper/luks-10Tb 1.96TiB
missing 8.62TiB
/dev/mapper/luks-ssd-mdata 11.29GiB
/dev/mapper/luks-new16T 7.60TiB
I wasn't going to send an email to this ML because I knew I had nothing
to reproduce the issue noww that it was "fixed", but now I think I'm bumping
into the same issue on another FS, while rebalancing data after adding a drive,
which happens to be the old 10T drive of the FS above.
The btrfs fi usage of this second FS is as follows:
Overall:
Device size: 25.50TiB
Device allocated: 22.95TiB
Device unallocated: 2.55TiB
Device missing: 0.00B
Used: 22.36TiB
Free (estimated): 3.14TiB (min: 1.87TiB)
Data ratio: 1.00
Metadata ratio: 2.00
Global reserve: 512.00MiB (used: 0.00B)
Multiple profiles: no
Data,single: Size:22.89TiB, Used:22.29TiB (97.40%)
/dev/mapper/luks-12T 10.91TiB
/dev/mapper/luks-3Ta 2.73TiB
/dev/mapper/luks-3Tb 2.73TiB
/dev/mapper/luks-10T 6.52TiB
Metadata,RAID1: Size:32.00GiB, Used:30.83GiB (96.34%)
/dev/mapper/luks-ssd-mdata2 32.00GiB
/dev/mapper/luks-10T 32.00GiB
System,RAID1: Size:32.00MiB, Used:2.44MiB (7.62%)
/dev/mapper/luks-3Tb 32.00MiB
/dev/mapper/luks-10T 32.00MiB
Unallocated:
/dev/mapper/luks-12T 45.00MiB
/dev/mapper/luks-ssd-mdata2 4.00GiB
/dev/mapper/luks-3Ta 1.02MiB
/dev/mapper/luks-3Tb 2.97GiB
/dev/mapper/luks-10T 2.54TiB
I can reproduce the problem reliably:
# btrfs bal start -dvrange=34625344765952..34625344765953 /tank
ERROR: error during balancing '/tank': No such file or directory
There may be more info in syslog - try dmesg | tail
[145979.563045] BTRFS info (device dm-10): balance: start
-dvrange=34625344765952..34625344765953
[145979.585572] BTRFS info (device dm-10): relocating block group
34625344765952 flags data|raid1
[145990.396585] BTRFS info (device dm-10): found 167 extents, stage: move data
extents
[146002.236115] BTRFS info (device dm-10): balance: ended with status: -2
If anybody is interested in looking into this, this time I can leave the FS in
this state.
The issue is reproducible, and I can live without completing the balance for
the next weeks
or even months, as I don't think I'll need the currently unallocatable space
soon.
I also made a btrfs-image of the FS, using btrfs-image -c 9 -t 4 -s -w.
If it's of any use, I can drop it somewhere (51G).
I could try to bisect manually to find which version between 5.6.x and 5.10.1
started to behave
like this, but on the first success, I won't know how to reproduce the issue a
second time, as
I'm not 100% sure it can be done solely with the btrfs-image.
Note that another user seem to have encoutered a similar issue in July with 5.8:
https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg103188.html
Regards,
Stéphane Lesimple.
