Re: btrfs send extremely slow (almost stuck)

At 08/29/2016 10:11 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote: At 08/28/2016 11:38 AM, Oliver Freyermuth wrote: Dear btrfs experts, I just tried to make use of btrfs send / receive for incremental backups (using btrbk to simplify the process). It seems that on my two machines, btrfs send gets stuck after

Re: btrfs send extremely slow (almost stuck)

At 08/28/2016 11:38 AM, Oliver Freyermuth wrote: Dear btrfs experts, I just tried to make use of btrfs send / receive for incremental backups (using btrbk to simplify the process). It seems that on my two machines, btrfs send gets stuck after transferring some GiB - it's not fully halted,

Re: btrfs and systemd

At 08/29/2016 04:15 AM, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote: Hi, i'm trying to get my 60TB btrfs volume to mount with systemd at boot. But this always fails with: "mounting timed out. Stopping." after 90s. 60TB is quite large, and under most case it will already cause mount speed problem.

Re: btrfs and systemd

Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG posted on Sun, 28 Aug 2016 22:15:21 +0200 as excerpted: > Hi, > > i'm trying to get my 60TB btrfs volume to mount with systemd at boot. > But this always fails with: "mounting timed out. Stopping." after 90s. > > I can't find any fstab setting for systemd to higher

Re: Recommendation on raid5 drive error resolution

Am I right that the wr: 0 means that the disks should at least be in a nice consistent state? I know that overlapping read fails can still cause everything to fail. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More

Re: Recommendation on raid5 drive error resolution

Current status: Knowing things were bad I did set the scterc values sanely, but the box was getting less stable so I thought a reboot was a good idea. That reboot failed to mount the partition at all and eveything triggered my 'is this a psu issue' sense so I've left the box off till I've got

Re: btrfs send extremely slow (almost stuck)

On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Oliver Freyermuth wrote: > For me, this means I have to stay with rsync backups, which are sadly > incomplete since special FS attrs > like "C" for nocow are not backed up. Should be able to make a script that creates a textfile

Re: does btrfs-receive use/compare the checksums from the btrfs-send side?

On Sun, 2016-08-28 at 22:19 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > Transports over which you're likely to send a filesystem stream > already > protect against corruption. Well... in some cases,... but not always... just consider a plain old netcat... > It'd still be nice to have something for those which

Re: does btrfs-receive use/compare the checksums from the btrfs-send side?

On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 07:50:42PM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > On Sun, 2016-08-28 at 11:35 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > > I don't see evidence of them in the btrfs send file, so I don't think > > csums are in the stream. > > hmm... isn't that kinda unfortunate not to make use of the

btrfs and systemd

Hi, i'm trying to get my 60TB btrfs volume to mount with systemd at boot. But this always fails with: "mounting timed out. Stopping." after 90s. I can't find any fstab setting for systemd to higher this timeout. There's just the x-systemd.device-timeout but this controls how long to wait for

Re: btrfstune settings

ExecStartPost=/usr/bin/borg prune -v --prefix 'system@' --keep-daily 7 --keep-weekly 5 --keep-monthly 12 --list --stats --save-space The result then looks like this: $ sudo -H borg info /mnt/private/backup/jupiter.sol.local.borg::system@20160828-0255 Name: system@20160828-0255 Fingerpr

Re: btrfstune settings

Hi, happy borgbackup user here. This is probably off-topic for most but as many users probably are evaluating send/receive versus other backup solutions, I'll keep linux-btrfs in the loop. On 28/08/2016 20:10, Oliver Freyermuth wrote: >> Try borgbackup, I'm using it very successfully. It is very

Re: btrfstune settings

> Try borgbackup, I'm using it very successfully. It is very fast, > supports very impressive deduplication and compression, retention > policies, and remote backups - and it is available as a single binary > version so you can more easily use it for disaster recovery. One > downside: while it

Re[2]: btrfs check "Couldn't open file system" after error in transaction.c

Hi Chris, thanks for your reply -especially on a Sunday. I have a filesystem (three disks with no raid) So it's data single *and* metadata single? No: Data, single: total=8.14TiB, used=7.64TiB System, RAID1: total=32.00MiB, used=912.00KiB Metadata, RAID1: total=18.00GiB, used=16.45GiB

Re: btrfstune settings

Am Sun, 28 Aug 2016 18:18:52 +0200 schrieb Oliver Freyermuth : > That would certainly be the best option, however, > I have two issues with that: > - Any replay of a backup will do a lot of writes on the SSD, > reducing lifetime. I'm using bcache in front of my

Re: does btrfs-receive use/compare the checksums from the btrfs-send side?

On Sun, 2016-08-28 at 11:35 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > I don't see evidence of them in the btrfs send file, so I don't think > csums are in the stream. hmm... isn't that kinda unfortunate not to make use of the information that's already there? IMO, to the extent this is possibly, btrfs should

Re: btrfstune settings

Am Sun, 28 Aug 2016 18:18:52 +0200 schrieb Oliver Freyermuth : > (sorry if my Message-ID header is missing, I am not subscribed to the > mailing list, so I reply using mail-archive) > > > Try btrfs-show-super . The incompat_flags section > > enumerates the flags

Re: does btrfs-receive use/compare the checksums from the btrfs-send side?

On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 9:46 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > Hey. > > I've often wondered: > When I do a send/receive, does the receiving side use the checksums > from the sending side (either by directly storing them or by comparing > them with calculated checksums

Re: btrfs check "Couldn't open file system" after error in transaction.c

On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 4:04 AM, Hendrik Friedel wrote: > Hello, > > I have a filesystem (three disks with no raid) So it's data single *and* metadata single? > btrfs check will lead to "Couldn't open file system" Try btrfs-progs all the most recent btrfs-progs to see

Re: btrfs check "Couldn't open file system" after error in transaction.c

Hello, some more info: The system is Debian jessie with kernel 4.6.0 and btrfs-tools 4.6. I did go through the recovery steps from the wiki: -btrfs scrub to detect issues on live filesystems see my original mail. Is aborted immediately -look at btrfs detected errors in syslog (look at Marc's

Re: Recommendation on raid5 drive error resolution

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 1:23 AM, Gareth Pye wrote: > So I've been living on the reckless-side (meta RAID6, data RAID5) and > I have a drive or two that isn't playing nicely any more. > > dmesg of the system running for a few minutes: http://pastebin.com/9pHBRQVe > >

Re: Is there a performance advantage in using Btrfs subvolumes over raw (MBR/GPT) partitions on rotational disks?

On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 5:17 AM, Alexander Tomokhov wrote: > Let's say I use a 128GiB MBR partition for OS and remaining 800GiB+ on disk > serves another purpose. Then all OS files will be physically close to each > other on the disk, thus reducing seek times. > If I use the

Re: btrfstune settings

(sorry if my Message-ID header is missing, I am not subscribed to the mailing list, so I reply using mail-archive) > Try btrfs-show-super . The incompat_flags section enumerates the > flags that are on (at least with a reasonably new btrfs-progs). Thanks a lot for this hint - I totally

Re: btrfs send extremely slow (almost stuck)

(sorry if my Message-ID header is missing, I am not subscribed to the mailing list, so I reply using mail-archive) > So a workaround would be reducing your duperemove usage and possibly > rewriting (for instance via defrag) the deduped files to kill the > multiple reflinks. Or simply delete

Re: btrfstune settings

Am Sun, 28 Aug 2016 08:27:59 + (UTC) schrieb Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net>: > > However, I miss two things: > > - How do I see on an existing FS which of these features are on? > > btrfstune (it seems) can only "set", but not "get" the feature > > flags. > > Try btrfs-show-super . The

[4.7.2] btrfs_run_delayed_refs:2963: errno=-17 Object already exists

Hello list! It happened again. While using VirtualBox the following crash happened, btrfs check found a lot of errors which it couldn't repair. Earlier that day my system crashed which may already introduced errors into my filesystem. Apparently, I couldn't create an image (not enough space

Is there a performance advantage in using Btrfs subvolumes over raw (MBR/GPT) partitions on rotational disks?

Let's say I use a 128GiB MBR partition for OS and remaining 800GiB+ on disk serves another purpose. Then all OS files will be physically close to each other on the disk, thus reducing seek times. If I use the whole disk for OS partition, then files will be spread across the disk and even

btrfs check "Couldn't open file system" after error in transaction.c

Hello, I have a filesystem (three disks with no raid) that I can still mount ro, but I cannot check or scrub it. In dmesg I see: [So Aug 28 11:33:22 2016] BTRFS error (device sde): parent transid verify failed on 22168481054720 wanted 1826943 found 1828546 [So Aug 28 11:33:22 2016] BTRFS

Re: btrfstune settings

Oliver Freyermuth posted on Sun, 28 Aug 2016 05:42:39 +0200 as excerpted: > Dear btrfs experts, > > I hope this is the correct place to ask, the wiki and manpages did not > help me on these questions. > > BTRFS has gained extended inode refs, skinny metadata and no-holes quite > a while ago and

Re: Crush on btrfs device delete missing

Hi Duncan. Sorry, I was careless. (And sorry illrelevant To header.) System is a Kernel 4.7.2 Manjaro Linux default setting. === $ uname -r 4.7.2-1-MANJARO === and btrfs progs. === $ pacman -Q btrfs-progs btrfs-progs 4.7-1 === result of btrfs fi usage /path/to/volume === Overall: Device

Re: Crush on btrfs device delete missing

MASAKI Yuhsuke posted on Sun, 28 Aug 2016 14:22:52 +0900 as excerpted: > btrfs device delete missing always crushes and stop system. > It log console only not STDOUT/STDERR or core file. While I'm unlikely to be able to help with the problem, for those who can, you're missing some critical

Re: btrfs send extremely slow (almost stuck)

Oliver Freyermuth posted on Sun, 28 Aug 2016 05:38:00 +0200 as excerpted: > Dear btrfs experts, > > I just tried to make use of btrfs send / receive for incremental backups > (using btrbk to simplify the process). > It seems that on my two machines, btrfs send gets stuck after > transferring

Re: Recommendation on raid5 drive error resolution

Hi Gareth, I'm interested in how you go with this as I'm somewhat similar with RAID5 with both. Don't take this as advice as I have never done it; however if I were in your shoes, I would take out one of the disks that isn't playing nicely and rebuild the array. Once it is running smooth