Re: RAID-10 arrays built with btrfs & md report 2x difference in available size?

On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 7:36 AM, jim owens wrote: > So Josef Bacik has sent patches to btrfs and btrfs-progs that > allow you to see raid-mode data and metadata adjusted values > with btrfs-ctrl -i instead of using "df". > > These patches have not been merged yet so you will have to pull > them an

Re: RAID-10 arrays built with btrfs & md report 2x difference in available size?

On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 7:36 AM, jim owens wrote: > So Josef Bacik has sent patches to btrfs and btrfs-progs that > allow you to see raid-mode data and metadata adjusted values > with btrfs-ctrl -i instead of using "df". > > These patches have not been merged yet so you will have to pull > them an

Re: when/why to use diffferent raid values for btrfs data & metadata?

On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 5:16 AM, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: >> anyone on when/why to use different RAID geometries for data & metadata? >> > > I expected that the size of data and meta-data are different by several order > of magnitude. So I can choice different trade-off between > space/speed/reli

Re: does btrfs have RAID I/O throughput (un)limiting sysctls, similar to md?

On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 5:10 AM, Daniel J Blueman wrote: > These proc entries affect just array reconstruction, not general I/O > performance/throughput, so affect just an edge-case of applications > requiring maximum latency/minimum throughout guarantees. although i'd 1st seen the perf hit at the

does btrfs have RAID I/O throughput (un)limiting sysctls, similar to md?

i've a 4 drive array connected via a PCIe SATA card. per OS (opensuse) default, md RAID I/O performance was being limited by, cat /proc/sys/dev/raid/speed_limit_min 1000 cat /proc/sys/dev/raid/speed_limit_max 20 changing, echo "dev.raid.speed_limit_min=10" >> /etc/sysctl.c

Re: when/why to use diffferent raid values for btrfs data & metadata?

anyone on when/why to use different RAID geometries for data & metadata? On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 8:38 AM, 0bo0 <0.bugs.onl...@gmail.com> wrote: > hi > > On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 3:28 AM, RK wrote: >> try this article "Linux Don't Need No Stinkin' Z

semantics in btrfs multi-device (RAID) mount-by-disk-label ?

i created a array, mkfs.btrfs -L TEST -m raid10 -d raid10 /dev/sda /dev/sdb /dev/sdc /dev/sdd btrfs-show Label: TEST uuid: 85aa9ac8-0089-4dd3-b8b2-3c0cbb96c924 Total devices 4 FS bytes used 28.00KB devid3 size 931.51GB used 2.01GB path /dev/sdc

Re: RAID-10 arrays built with btrfs & md report 2x difference in available size?

On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 3:46 PM, jim owens wrote: > but it is the only method > that can remain accurate under the mixed raid modes possible > on a per-file-basis in btrfs. can you clarify, then, the intention/goal behind cmason's "df is lying. The total bytes in the FS include all 4 drives. I

Re: RAID-10 arrays built with btrfs & md report 2x difference in available size?

> For me, it looks as if 2.03GB is way smaller than 931.51GB (2 << 931), no? > Everything seems to be fine here. gagh! i "saw" TB, not GB. 8-/ > And regarding your original mail: it seems that df is still lying about the > size of the btrfs fs, check > http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-btrfs

Re: mount after reboot of btrfs RAID-10 fails with "btrfs: failed to read the system array on sda"

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: >>    /dev/sda    /mnt    btrfs >> device=/dev/sdb,device=/dev/sdc,device=/dev/sdd     1 2 > > Yes; it works for me. thanks for the confirmation. verifying, with that in /etc/fstab, after boot i see, mount | grep sda /dev/sda

Re: mount after reboot of btrfs RAID-10 fails with "btrfs: failed to read the system array on sda"

On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Leszek Ciesielski wrote: >> how would that, then, get handled for automount @ boot via fstab?  i >> guess that the scan needs to get done as well ... >> -- > > Please see this discussion: > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/4126/focus=4187 Than

Re: RAID-10 arrays built with btrfs & md report 2x difference in available size?

noticing from above >>  ... size 931.51GB used 2.03GB ... 'used' more than the 'size'? more confused ... -- 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.h

Re: mount after reboot of btrfs RAID-10 fails with "btrfs: failed to read the system array on sda"

hi On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 12:02 AM, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: > On Sunday 24 January 2010, 0bo0 wrote: >> after a simple reboot, >                 ^^ > Have you do > >  # btrfsctl -a > > before mounting the filesystem ? This command scans all the block devices &

Re: when/why to use diffferent raid values for btrfs data & metadata?

hi On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 3:28 AM, RK wrote: > try this article "Linux Don't Need No Stinkin' ZFS: BTRFS Intro & > Benchmarks" > http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7308/3/ > , there is a benchmark table and speed analysis (very informative), but > all the benchmarks are done with same -m and -d mkfs.bt

mount after reboot of btrfs RAID-10 fails with "btrfs: failed to read the system array on sda"

after a simple reboot, btrfs-show Label: TEST uuid: 2ac85206-2d88-47d7-a1e7-a93d80b199f8 Total devices 4 FS bytes used 28.00KB devid1 size 931.51GB used 2.03GB path /dev/sda devid2 size 931.51GB

RAID-10 arrays built with btrfs & md report 2x difference in available size?

I created a btrfs RAID-10 array across 4-drives, mkfs.btrfs -L TEST -m raid10 -d raid10 /dev/sda /dev/sdb /dev/sdc /dev/sdd btrfs-show Label: TEST uuid: 2ac85206-2d88-47d7-a1e7-a93d80b199f8 Total devices 4 FS bytes used 28.00KB devid1 size 931.51GB us