Re: [PATCH v2 RESEND 2/5] fstests: btrfs: Add basic test for btrfs in-band de-duplication

Dave Chinner wrote on 2016/02/29 17:43 +1100: On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:04:35AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: Hi Dave, Thanks for the review. All comment are correct and I'll update the patchset soon. Only one small question below Dave Chinner wrote on 2016/02/29 09:26 +1100: ... +# File size

Re: [PATCH v2 RESEND 2/5] fstests: btrfs: Add basic test for btrfs in-band de-duplication

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:04:35AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > Hi Dave, > > Thanks for the review. > > All comment are correct and I'll update the patchset soon. > > Only one small question below > > Dave Chinner wrote on 2016/02/29 09:26 +1100: > ... > >>+# File size is twice the maximum file

Re: [PATCH V15 00/15] Btrfs: Subpagesize-blocksize: Allow I/O on blocks whose size is less than page size

On Thursday 11 Feb 2016 23:17:38 Chandan Rajendra wrote: > Btrfs assumes block size to be the same as the machine's page > size. This would mean that a Btrfs instance created on a 4k page size > machine (e.g. x86) will not be mountable on machines with larger page > sizes (e.g. PPC64/AARCH64).

Re: [PATCH v2 RESEND 2/5] fstests: btrfs: Add basic test for btrfs in-band de-duplication

Hi Dave, Thanks for the review. All comment are correct and I'll update the patchset soon. Only one small question below Dave Chinner wrote on 2016/02/29 09:26 +1100: ... +# File size is twice the maximum file extent of btrfs +# So even fallbacked to non-dedup, it will have at least 2

Re: Again, no space left on device while rebalancing and recipe doesnt work

Marc Haber wrote on 2016/02/27 22:14 +0100: Hi, I have again the issue of no space left on device while rebalancing (with btrfs-tools 4.4.1 on kernel 4.4.2 on Debian unstable): mh@fan:~$ sudo btrfs balance start /mnt/fanbtr ERROR: error during balancing '/mnt/fanbtr': No space left on device

[PULL][v7 REBASED 00/20] Btrfs In-band de-duplication

Hi Chris, Would you please consider to merge the rebased version of btrfs in-band de-duplication for 4.6 merge window? The pull can be fetched from github: https://github.com/adam900710/linux.git wang_dedup_20160229 We have tested previous v7 patchset for one week and found no new in-band

Re: [PATCH 1/2] fstests: btrfs/011 use replace_options

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 01:42:08PM +0100, David Sterba wrote: > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 09:25:28PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > > This patch fixes test btrfs/011 which intended to use -r option > > but was never used since its associated args 'replace_options' > > didn't make it to the cli. > >

Re: [PATCH v2 RESEND 5/5] fstests: btrfs: Test inband dedup with balance.

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 04:06:36PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > Btrfs balance will reloate date extent, but its hash is removed too late > at run_delayed_ref() time, which will cause extent ref increased > increased during balance, cause either find_data_references() gives > WARN_ON() or even

Re: [PATCH v2 RESEND 4/5] fstests: btrfs: Add per inode dedup flag test

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 04:06:35PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > +# File size is twice the maximum file extent of btrfs > +# So even fallbacked to non-dedup, it will have at least 2 extents > +file_size=$(( 256 * 1024 * 1024 )) > +dedup_bs=$(( 64 * 1024 )) 256m, 64k. > +_scratch_mkfs "-O dedup" >>

Re: [PATCH v2 RESEND 3/5] fstests: btrfs: Add testcase for btrfs dedup enable disable race test

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 04:06:34PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > + > +fsstress_work & > +fsstress_pid=$! > + > +trigger_work & > +trigger_pid=$! > + > +wait $fsstress_pid > +kill $trigger_pid > +wait Maximum bound runtime based on $TIME_FACTOR would be better, rather than having to wait for fsstress

Re: [PATCH v2 RESEND 2/5] fstests: btrfs: Add basic test for btrfs in-band de-duplication

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 04:06:33PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > Add basic test for btrfs in-band de-duplication, including: > 1) Enable > 2) Re-enable > 3) On disk extents are refering to same bytenr > 4) Disable > > Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo > --- > common/defrag |

Re: btrfs equivalent for zfs send -R

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 4:45 AM, Γιώργος Πάλλας wrote: > Hi all. > > If I have a btrfs subvolume 'subv' and then subvolumes subv/sub1, subv/sub2, > subv/sub3, is there a way to snapshot all the subv tree and then recursively > send it remotely? > > I think this would be the

[PATCH] btrfs-progs: docs: add note about resizing to max after device replace

Signed-off-by: Alexander Fougner --- Documentation/btrfs-replace.asciidoc | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) diff --git a/Documentation/btrfs-replace.asciidoc b/Documentation/btrfs-replace.asciidoc index 5a14a40..61ab306 100644 ---

Re: Replacing RAID-1 devices with larger disks

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 05:15:32PM -0300, Christian Robottom Reis wrote: > Hello there, > > I'm running a btrfs RAID-1 on two 128GB SSDs that were getting kind > of full. I found two 256GB SSDs that I plan to use to replace the 128TB > versions. > > I've managed to do the actual swap using a

Re: Replacing RAID-1 devices with larger disks

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 05:15:32PM -0300, Christian Robottom Reis wrote: > I've managed to do the actual swap using a series of btrfs replace > commands with no special arguments, and the system is now live and > booting from the 256GB drives. However, I haven't actually noticed any > difference

Replacing RAID-1 devices with larger disks

Hello there, I'm running a btrfs RAID-1 on two 128GB SSDs that were getting kind of full. I found two 256GB SSDs that I plan to use to replace the 128TB versions. I've managed to do the actual swap using a series of btrfs replace commands with no special arguments, and the system is now live

Re: utils version and convert crash

Just noting that I left things till I put a 4.4 kernel on (4.4.3 as it turns out) and now convert is going much nicer. Well it's still got some silly thing where the newly allocated blocks are mostly empty. It appears that the convert likes to take the 1Gig RAID1 block and write it to a new RAID5

Re: btrfs equivalent for zfs send -R

Γιώργος Πάλλας posted on Sun, 28 Feb 2016 10:17:38 +0200 as excerpted: > On 28/02/16 05:45, Duncan wrote: >> Γιώργος Πάλλας posted on Sat, 27 Feb 2016 13:45:03 +0200 >> as excerpted: >> >>> Hi all. >>> >>> If I have a btrfs subvolume 'subv' and then subvolumes subv/sub1, >>> subv/sub2, subv/sub3,

Re: Again, no space left on device while rebalancing and recipe doesnt work

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 12:22:45AM +, Hugo Mills wrote: > On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 01:08:29AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > > Why wouldn't btrfs allocate more data chunks from the ample free space? > >It's a bug. It's been around for years (literally), but nobody's > tracked it down and fixed

Re: btrfs equivalent for zfs send -R

On 28/02/16 05:45, Duncan wrote: Γιώργος Πάλλας posted on Sat, 27 Feb 2016 13:45:03 +0200 as excerpted: Hi all. If I have a btrfs subvolume 'subv' and then subvolumes subv/sub1, subv/sub2, subv/sub3, is there a way to snapshot all the subv tree and then recursively send it remotely? I think