Re: [PATCH] btrfs-progs: better document btrfs receive security

On 2017-02-07 13:27, David Sterba wrote: On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 08:48:58AM -0500, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: This adds some extra documentation to the btrfs-receive manpage that explains some of the security related aspects of btrfs-receive. The first part covers the fact that the subvolume

Re: BTRFS for OLTP Databases

On 2017-02-07 15:54, Kai Krakow wrote: Am Tue, 7 Feb 2017 15:27:34 -0500 schrieb "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" <ahferro...@gmail.com>: I'm not sure about this one. I would assume based on the fact that many other things don't work with nodatacow and that regular defrag doesn't wor

Re: BTRFS for OLTP Databases

On 2017-02-07 15:36, Kai Krakow wrote: Am Tue, 7 Feb 2017 09:13:25 -0500 schrieb Peter Zaitsev : Hi Hugo, For the use case I'm looking for I'm interested in having snapshot(s) open at all time. Imagine for example snapshot being created every hour and several of these

Re: BTRFS for OLTP Databases

On 2017-02-07 15:19, Kai Krakow wrote: Am Tue, 7 Feb 2017 14:50:04 -0500 schrieb "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" <ahferro...@gmail.com>: Also does autodefrag works with nodatacow (ie with snapshot) or are these exclusive ? I'm not sure about this one. I would assume based on the fact

Re: Very slow balance / btrfs-transaction

On 2017-02-07 14:47, Kai Krakow wrote: Am Mon, 6 Feb 2017 08:19:37 -0500 schrieb "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" <ahferro...@gmail.com>: MDRAID uses stripe selection based on latency and other measurements (like head position). It would be nice if btrfs implemented similar functiona

Re: BTRFS for OLTP Databases

On 2017-02-07 14:39, Kai Krakow wrote: Am Tue, 7 Feb 2017 10:06:34 -0500 schrieb "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" <ahferro...@gmail.com>: 4. Try using in-line compression. This can actually significantly improve performance, especially if you have slow storage devices and a really

Re: BTRFS for OLTP Databases

On 2017-02-07 13:59, Peter Zaitsev wrote: Jeff, Thank you very much for explanations. Indeed it was not clear in the documentation - I read it simply as "if you have snapshots enabled nodatacow makes no difference" I will rebuild the database in this mode from scratch and see how performance

Re: BTRFS for OLTP Databases

On 2017-02-07 14:31, Peter Zaitsev wrote: Hi Hugo, As I re-read it closely (and also other comments in the thread) I know understand there is a difference how nodatacow works even if snapshot are in place. On autodefrag I wonder is there some more detailed documentation about how autodefrag

Re: BTRFS for OLTP Databases

On 2017-02-07 10:20, Timofey Titovets wrote: I think that you have a problem with extent bookkeeping (if i understand how btrfs manage extents). So for deal with it, try enable compression, as compression will force all extents to be fragmented with size ~128kb. No, it will compress everything

Re: BTRFS for OLTP Databases

On 2017-02-07 10:00, Timofey Titovets wrote: 2017-02-07 17:13 GMT+03:00 Peter Zaitsev : Hi Hugo, For the use case I'm looking for I'm interested in having snapshot(s) open at all time. Imagine for example snapshot being created every hour and several of these snapshots

Re: BTRFS for OLTP Databases

On 2017-02-07 08:53, Peter Zaitsev wrote: Hi, I have tried BTRFS from Ubuntu 16.04 LTS for write intensive OLTP MySQL Workload. It did not go very well ranging from multi-seconds stalls where no transactions are completed to the finally kernel OOPS with "no space left on device" error

Re: Very slow balance / btrfs-transaction

On 2017-02-04 16:10, Kai Krakow wrote: Am Sat, 04 Feb 2017 20:50:03 + schrieb "Jorg Bornschein" : February 4, 2017 1:07 AM, "Goldwyn Rodrigues" wrote: Yes, please check if disabling quotas makes a difference in execution time of btrfs balance. Just

Re: Is it possible to have metadata-only device with no data?

On 2017-02-05 23:26, Duncan wrote: Hans van Kranenburg posted on Sun, 05 Feb 2017 22:55:42 +0100 as excerpted: On 02/05/2017 10:42 PM, Alexander Tomokhov wrote: Is it possible, having two drives to do raid1 for metadata but keep data on a single drive only? Nope. Would be a really nice

Re: btrfs receive leaves new subvolume modifiable during operation

On 2017-02-05 06:54, Kai Krakow wrote: Am Wed, 1 Feb 2017 17:43:32 + schrieb Graham Cobb <g.bt...@cobb.uk.net>: On 01/02/17 12:28, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2017-02-01 00:09, Duncan wrote: Christian Lupien posted on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 18:32:58 -0500 as excerpted: [...] I'

[PATCH v2] btrfs-progs: better document btrfs receive security

of the send stream. Signed-off-by: Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> Suggested-by: Graham Cobb <g.bt...@cobb.uk.net> --- Chages since v1: * Updated the description based on suggestions from Graham Cobb. Inspired by a recent thread on the ML. This could probably be m

Re: btrfs receive leaves new subvolume modifiable during operation

On 2017-02-03 14:17, Graham Cobb wrote: On 03/02/17 16:01, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: Ironically, I ended up having time sooner than I thought. The message doesn't appear to be in any of the archives yet, but the message ID is: <20170203134858.75210-1-ahferro...@gmail.com> Ah. I

Re: btrfs receive leaves new subvolume modifiable during operation

On 2017-02-03 10:44, Graham Cobb wrote: On 03/02/17 12:44, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: I can look at making a patch for this, but it may be next week before I have time (I'm not great at multi-tasking when it comes to software development, and I'm in the middle of helping to fix a bug

[PATCH] btrfs-progs: better document btrfs receive security

of the send stream. Signed-off-by: Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> --- Inspired by a recent thread on the ML. This could probably be more thorough, but I felt it was more important to get it documented as quickly as possible, and this should cover the basic info that most

Re: btrfs receive leaves new subvolume modifiable during operation

On 2017-02-03 04:14, Duncan wrote: Graham Cobb posted on Thu, 02 Feb 2017 10:52:26 + as excerpted: On 02/02/17 00:02, Duncan wrote: If it's a workaround, then many of the Linux procedures we as admins and users use every day are equally workarounds. Setting 007 perms on a dir that

Re: raid1: cannot add disk to replace faulty because can only mount fs as read-only.

On 2017-02-02 09:25, Adam Borowski wrote: On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 07:49:50AM -0500, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: This is a severe bug that makes a not all that uncommon (albeit bad) use case fail completely. The fix had no dependencies itself and I don't see what's bad in mounting a RAID

Re: btrfs receive leaves new subvolume modifiable during operation

On 2017-02-02 05:52, Graham Cobb wrote: On 02/02/17 00:02, Duncan wrote: If it's a workaround, then many of the Linux procedures we as admins and users use every day are equally workarounds. Setting 007 perms on a dir that doesn't have anything immediately security vulnerable in it, simply to

Re: raid1: cannot add disk to replace faulty because can only mount fs as read-only.

On 2017-02-01 17:48, Duncan wrote: Adam Borowski posted on Wed, 01 Feb 2017 12:55:30 +0100 as excerpted: On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 05:23:16AM +, Duncan wrote: Hans Deragon posted on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 21:51:22 -0500 as excerpted: But the current scenario makes it difficult for me to put

Re: btrfs receive leaves new subvolume modifiable during operation

On 2017-02-01 00:09, Duncan wrote: Christian Lupien posted on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 18:32:58 -0500 as excerpted: I have been testing btrfs send/receive. I like it. During those tests I discovered that it is possible to access and modify (add files, delete files ...) of the new receive snapshot

Re: btrfs recovery

On 2017-01-30 23:58, Duncan wrote: Oliver Freyermuth posted on Sat, 28 Jan 2017 17:46:24 +0100 as excerpted: Just don't count on restore to save your *** and always treat what it can often bring to current as a pleasant surprise, and having it fail won't be a down side, while having it work,

Re: btrfs recovery

On 2017-01-28 00:00, Duncan wrote: Austin S. Hemmelgarn posted on Fri, 27 Jan 2017 07:58:20 -0500 as excerpted: On 2017-01-27 06:01, Oliver Freyermuth wrote: I'm also running 'memtester 12G' right now, which at least tests 2/3 of the memory. I'll leave that running for a day or so

Re: raid1: cannot add disk to replace faulty because can only mount fs as read-only.

On 2017-01-28 04:17, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: 27.01.2017 23:03, Austin S. Hemmelgarn пишет: On 2017-01-27 11:47, Hans Deragon wrote: On 2017-01-24 14:48, Adam Borowski wrote: On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 01:57:24PM -0500, Hans Deragon wrote: If I remove 'ro' from the option, I cannot get

Re: raid1: cannot add disk to replace faulty because can only mount fs as read-only.

On 2017-01-27 11:47, Hans Deragon wrote: On 2017-01-24 14:48, Adam Borowski wrote: On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 01:57:24PM -0500, Hans Deragon wrote: If I remove 'ro' from the option, I cannot get the filesystem mounted because of the following error: BTRFS: missing devices(1) exceeds the

Re: btrfs recovery

On 2017-01-27 06:01, Oliver Freyermuth wrote: I'm also running 'memtester 12G' right now, which at least tests 2/3 of the memory. I'll leave that running for a day or so, but of course it will not provide a clear answer... A small update: while the online memtester is without any errors

Re: dup vs raid1 in single disk

On 2017-01-19 13:23, Roman Mamedov wrote: On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 17:39:37 +0100 "Alejandro R. Mosteo" wrote: I was wondering, from a point of view of data safety, if there is any difference between using dup or making a raid1 from two partitions in the same disk. This is

Re: Fwd: dup vs raid1 in single disk

On 2017-01-19 11:39, Alejandro R. Mosteo wrote: Hello list, I was wondering, from a point of view of data safety, if there is any difference between using dup or making a raid1 from two partitions in the same disk. This is thinking on having some protection against the typical aging HDD that

Re: Cannot mount vol after balance crash

On 2017-01-18 09:21, Steven Hum wrote: Added 2 drives to my RAID10, then ran btrfs balance. The system appears to have crashed after several hours (I was ssh'd in at the time on my local network). When I reboot the Arch system, I ran btrfs check and no errors were reported. However, attempting

Re: Unocorrectable errors with RAID1

On 2017-01-17 04:18, Christoph Groth wrote: Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: There's not really much in the way of great documentation that I know of. I can however cover the basics here: (...) Thanks for this explanation. I'm sure it will be also useful to others. Glad I could help

Re: Unocorrectable errors with RAID1

On 2017-01-16 23:50, Janos Toth F. wrote: BTRFS uses a 2 level allocation system. At the higher level, you have chunks. These are just big blocks of space on the disk that get used for only one type of lower level allocation (Data, Metadata, or System). Data chunks are normally 1GB, Metadata

Re: Unocorrectable errors with RAID1

On 2017-01-16 10:42, Christoph Groth wrote: Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2017-01-16 06:10, Christoph Groth wrote: root@mim:~# btrfs fi df / Data, RAID1: total=417.00GiB, used=344.62GiB Data, single: total=8.00MiB, used=0.00B System, RAID1: total=40.00MiB, used=68.00KiB System, single

Re: Unocorrectable errors with RAID1

On 2017-01-16 06:10, Christoph Groth wrote: Hi, I’ve been using a btrfs RAID1 of two hard disks since early 2012 on my home server. The machine has been working well overall, but recently some problems with the file system surfaced. Since I do have backups, I do not worry about the data, but

Re: Best practices for raid 1

On 2017-01-10 16:49, Chris Murphy wrote: On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Vinko Magecic wrote: Hello, I set up a raid 1 with two btrfs devices and came across some situations in my testing that I can't get a straight answer on. 1) When replacing a volume, do

Re: mkfs.btrfs/balance small-btrfs chunk size RFC

On 2017-01-10 10:42, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: Most of the issue in this case is with the size of the initial chunk. That said, I've got quite a few reasonably sized filesystems (I think the largest is 200GB) with moderate usage (max 90GB of data), and none of them are using more than

Re: mkfs.btrfs/balance small-btrfs chunk size RFC

On 2017-01-10 10:47, Hugo Mills wrote: On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:42:51AM -0500, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: Most of the issue in this case is with the size of the initial chunk. That said, I've got quite a few reasonably sized filesystems (I think the largest is 200GB) with moderate usage (max

Re: mkfs.btrfs/balance small-btrfs chunk size RFC

On 2017-01-10 10:29, Hugo Mills wrote: On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 09:57:52AM -0500, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2017-01-09 22:55, Duncan wrote: This post is triggered by a balance problem due to oversized chunks that I have currently. Proposal 1: Ensure maximum chunk sizes are less than 1/8

Re: mkfs.btrfs/balance small-btrfs chunk size RFC

On 2017-01-09 22:55, Duncan wrote: This post is triggered by a balance problem due to oversized chunks that I have currently. Proposal 1: Ensure maximum chunk sizes are less than 1/8 the size of the filesystem (down to where they can't be any smaller, at least). Proposal 2: Drastically reduce

Re: [PATCH] recursive defrag cleanup

On 2017-01-04 17:12, Janos Toth F. wrote: I separated these 9 camera storages into 9 subvolumes (so now I have 10 subvols in total in this filesystem with the "root" subvol). It's obviously way too early to talk about long term performance but now I can tell that recursive defrag does NOT

Re: [markfasheh/duperemove] Why blocksize is limit to 1MB?

ath from the batch deduplication ioctl. It also doesn't have the context switches and other overhead from an ioctl involved, because it's done in kernel code. 2017-01-03 21:40 GMT+01:00 Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com>: On 2017-01-03 15:20, Peter Becker wrote: I think i u

Re: [markfasheh/duperemove] Why blocksize is limit to 1MB?

ill roughly quadruple the time it takes to make the comparisons). 2017-01-03 20:37 GMT+01:00 Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com>: On 2017-01-03 14:21, Peter Becker wrote: All invocations are justified, but not relevant in (offline) backup and archive scenarios. For example you

Re: [PATCH] recursive defrag cleanup

On 2017-01-03 13:16, Janos Toth F. wrote: On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: I agree on this point. I actually hadn't known that it didn't recurse into sub-volumes, and that's a pretty significant caveat that should be documented (and i

Re: [PATCH] recursive defrag cleanup

On 2017-01-03 09:21, Janos Toth F. wrote: So, in order to defrag "everything" in the filesystem (which is possible to / potentially needs defrag) I need to run: 1: a recursive defrag starting from the root subvolume (to pick up all the files in all the possible subvolumes and directories) 2: a

Re: [markfasheh/duperemove] Why blocksize is limit to 1MB?

On 2016-12-30 15:28, Peter Becker wrote: Hello, i have a 8 TB volume with multiple files with hundreds of GB each. I try to dedupe this because the first hundred GB of many files are identical. With 128KB blocksize with nofiemap and lookup-extends=no option, will take more then a week (only

Re: btrfs_log2phys: cannot lookup extent mapping

On 2016-12-22 18:38, Xin Zhou wrote: Hi, If the change of disk format between versions is precisely documented, it is plausible to create a utility to convert the old volume to new ones, trigger the workflow, upgrade the kernel and boots up for mounting the new volume. Currently, the btrfs wiki

Re: btrfs_log2phys: cannot lookup extent mapping

On 2016-12-23 03:14, Adam Borowski wrote: On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 01:28:37PM -0500, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2016-12-22 10:14, Adam Borowski wrote: On the other, other filesystems: * suffer from silent data loss every time the disk doesn't notice an error! Allowing silent data loss

Re: btrfs_log2phys: cannot lookup extent mapping

On 2016-12-22 10:14, Adam Borowski wrote: On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 10:11:35AM +, Duncan wrote: Given the maturing-but-not-yet-fully-stable-and-mature state of btrfs today, being no further from a usable current backup than the data you're willing to lose, at least worst-case, remains an even

Re: [bug or by design ?] btrfs defrag compression does not persist

On 2016-12-21 21:28, Anand Jain wrote: A quick design specific question. The following command converts file-data-extents to the specified encoder (lzo). $ btrfs filesystem defrag -v -r -f -clzo dir/ However the lzo property does not persist through the file modify. As the above operation

Re: btrfs-find-root duration?

On 2016-12-10 20:42, Markus Binsteiner wrote: Hi Xin, thanks. I did not enable autosnap, and I'm pretty sure Debian didn't do it for me either, as I would have seen the subvolumes created by it at some stage. Good to know about this feature though, will definitely use it next time around. BTRFS

Re: autoversioning?

On 2016-12-09 06:02, Ulli Horlacher wrote: Is file autoversioning possible with btrfs? I have a VMS background, where the standard filesystem automatically creates a new version for every file that is written. The number of versions can be controlled globally, on directory or on file base.

Re: out-of-band dedup status?

On 2016-12-08 21:54, Chris Murphy wrote: On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 7:26 PM, Darrick J. Wong wrote: On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 05:45:40PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: OK something's wrong. Kernel 4.8.12 and duperemove v0.11.beta4. Brand new file system (mkfs.btrfs -dsingle

Re: duperemove : some real world figures on BTRFS deduplication

On 2016-12-08 15:07, Jeff Mahoney wrote: On 12/8/16 10:42 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2016-12-08 10:11, Swâmi Petaramesh wrote: Hi, Some real world figures about running duperemove deduplication on BTRFS : I have an external 2,5", 5400 RPM, 1 TB HD, USB3, on which I store the

Re: [RESEND][PATCH v2] btrfs-progs: add dev stats returncode option

On 2016-12-08 12:20, David Sterba wrote: On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 01:35:20PM -0500, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: Currently, `btrfs device stats` returns non-zero only when there was an error getting the counter values. This is fine for when it gets run by a user directly, but is a serious pain

Re: duperemove : some real world figures on BTRFS deduplication

On 2016-12-08 10:11, Swâmi Petaramesh wrote: Hi, Some real world figures about running duperemove deduplication on BTRFS : I have an external 2,5", 5400 RPM, 1 TB HD, USB3, on which I store the BTRFS backups (full rsync) of 5 PCs, using 2 different distros, typically at the same update level,

[RESEND][PATCH v2] btrfs-progs: add dev stats returncode option

that this switch is passed and an error occurs reading the stats, the return code will have bit 0 set (so if there are errors reading counters, and the counters which were read were non-zero, the return value will be 65). Signed-off-by: Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> --- Changes si

[PATCH v2] btrfs-progs: add dev stats returncode option

that this switch is passed and an error occurs reading the stats, the return code will have bit 0 set (so if there are errors reading counters, and the counters which were read were non-zero, the return value will be 65). Signed-off-by: Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> --- Changes si

Re: [PATCH] btrfs-progs: add dev stats returncode option

On 2016-12-01 15:32, Mike Fleetwood wrote: On 1 December 2016 at 18:43, Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: Currently, `btrfs device stats` returns non-zero only when there was an error getting the counter values. This is fine for when it gets run by a user di

[PATCH] btrfs-progs: doc: Update docs about RAID profiles

these profiles. Signed-off-by: Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> --- This should work to cover most of the issues brought up on the mailing list recently regarding this particular aspect of documentation. Documentation/mkfs.btrfs.asciidoc | 44 ---

[PATCH] btrfs-progs: add dev stats returncode option

that this switch is passed and an error occurs reading the stats, the return code will have bit 0 set (so if there are errors reading counters, and the counters which were read were non-zero, the return value will be 129). Signed-off-by: Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> --- Tested on mu

Re: 4.8.8, bcache deadlock and hard lockup

On 2016-11-30 19:48, Chris Murphy wrote: On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Eric Wheeler wrote: On Wed, 30 Nov 2016, Marc MERLIN wrote: +btrfs mailing list, see below why On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 12:59:44PM -0800, Eric Wheeler wrote: On Mon, 27 Nov 2016, Coly Li

Re: btrfs flooding the I/O subsystem and hanging the machine, with bcache cache turned off

On 2016-11-30 12:18, Marc MERLIN wrote: On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 08:46:46AM -0800, Marc MERLIN wrote: +btrfs mailing list, see below why Ok, Linus helped me find a workaround for this problem: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/11/29/667 namely: echo 2 > /proc/sys/vm/dirty_ratio echo 1 >

Re: Convert from RAID 5 to 10

On 2016-11-30 10:49, Wilson Meier wrote: Am 30/11/16 um 15:37 schrieb Austin S. Hemmelgarn: On 2016-11-30 08:12, Wilson Meier wrote: Am 30/11/16 um 11:41 schrieb Duncan: Wilson Meier posted on Wed, 30 Nov 2016 09:35:36 +0100 as excerpted: Am 30/11/16 um 09:06 schrieb Martin Steigerwald

Re: Convert from RAID 5 to 10

On 2016-11-30 09:04, Roman Mamedov wrote: On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 07:50:17 -0500 "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: *) Read performance is not optimized: all metadata is always read from the first device unless it has failed, data reads are supposedly balanced bet

Re: Convert from RAID 5 to 10

On 2016-11-30 08:12, Wilson Meier wrote: Am 30/11/16 um 11:41 schrieb Duncan: Wilson Meier posted on Wed, 30 Nov 2016 09:35:36 +0100 as excerpted: Am 30/11/16 um 09:06 schrieb Martin Steigerwald: Am Mittwoch, 30. November 2016, 10:38:08 CET schrieb Roman Mamedov: [snip] So the stability

Re: Convert from RAID 5 to 10

On 2016-11-30 00:38, Roman Mamedov wrote: On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 00:16:48 +0100 Wilson Meier wrote: That said, btrfs shouldn't be used for other then raid1 as every other raid level has serious problems or at least doesn't work as the expected raid level (in terms of

Re: Convert from RAID 5 to 10

On 2016-11-29 14:03, Lionel Bouton wrote: Hi, Le 29/11/2016 à 18:20, Florian Lindner a écrit : [...] * Any other advice? ;-) Don't rely on RAID too much... The degraded mode is unstable even for RAID10: you can corrupt data simply by writing to a degraded RAID10. I could reliably reproduce

Re: Convert from RAID 5 to 10

On 2016-11-29 12:20, Florian Lindner wrote: Hello, I have 4 harddisks with 3TB capacity each. They are all used in a btrfs RAID 5. It has come to my attention, that there seem to be major flaws in btrfs' raid 5 implementation. Because of that, I want to convert the the raid 5 to a raid 10 and

Re: True size of btrfs data chunk

On 2016-11-29 09:32, Timofey Titovets wrote: Hi, as wiki say https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Glossary: A part of a block group. Chunks are either 1 GiB in size (for data) or 256 MiB (for metadata). This is only about the normal case. Chunks are variable in size. In most cases, data

Re: mount option nodatacow for VMs on SSD?

On 2016-11-29 00:06, Duncan wrote: Niccolò Belli posted on Mon, 28 Nov 2016 12:11:49 +0100 as excerpted: On lunedì 28 novembre 2016 09:20:15 CET, Kai Krakow wrote: You can, however, use chattr to make the subvolume root directory (that one where it is mounted) nodatacow (chattr +C) _before_

Re: [Not TLS] Re: mount option nodatacow for VMs on SSD?

On 2016-11-29 00:14, Duncan wrote: Graham Cobb posted on Mon, 28 Nov 2016 09:49:33 + as excerpted: On 28/11/16 02:56, Duncan wrote: It should still be worth turning on autodefrag on an existing somewhat fragmented filesystem. It just might take some time to defrag files you do modify,

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: raid56: Use correct stolen pages to calculate P/Q

On 2016-11-28 14:01, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: On Mon, 2016-11-28 at 19:45 +0100, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: I am understanding that the status of RAID5/6 code is so badly Just some random thought: If the code for raid56 is really as bad as it's often claimed (I haven't read it, to be

Re: Btrfs Heatmap - v2 - block group internals!

On 2016-11-18 09:37, Hans van Kranenburg wrote: Ha, On 11/18/2016 01:36 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2016-11-17 16:08, Hans van Kranenburg wrote: On 11/17/2016 08:27 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2016-11-17 13:51, Hans van Kranenburg wrote: But, the fun with visualizations

Re: Btrfs Heatmap - v2 - block group internals!

On 2016-11-18 10:08, Hans van Kranenburg wrote: On 11/18/2016 03:08 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote: When generating a picture of a file system with multiple devices, boundaries between the separate devices are not visible now. If someone has a brilliant idea about how to do this without throwing out

Re: Btrfs Heatmap - v2 - block group internals!

On 2016-11-17 16:08, Hans van Kranenburg wrote: On 11/17/2016 08:27 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2016-11-17 13:51, Hans van Kranenburg wrote: When generating a picture of a file system with multiple devices, boundaries between the separate devices are not visible now. If someone has

Re: degraded BTRFS RAID 1 not mountable: open_ctree failed, unable to find block group for 0

On 2016-11-17 15:05, Chris Murphy wrote: I think the wiki should be updated to reflect that raid1 and raid10 are mostly OK. I think it's grossly misleading to consider either as green/OK when a single degraded read write mount creates single chunks that will then prevent a subsequent degraded

Re: Btrfs Heatmap - v2 - block group internals!

On 2016-11-17 13:51, Hans van Kranenburg wrote: Hey, On 11/17/2016 02:27 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote: At 11/17/2016 04:30 AM, Hans van Kranenburg wrote: In the last two days I've added the --blockgroup option to btrfs heatmap to let it create pictures of block group internals. Examples and more

Re: degraded BTRFS RAID 1 not mountable: open_ctree failed, unable to find block group for 0

On 2016-11-16 06:04, Martin Steigerwald wrote: Am Mittwoch, 16. November 2016, 16:00:31 CET schrieb Roman Mamedov: On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 11:55:32 +0100 Martin Steigerwald wrote: I do think that above kernel messages invite such a kind of interpretation tough. I

Re: degraded BTRFS RAID 1 not mountable: open_ctree failed, unable to find block group for 0

On 2016-11-16 05:55, Martin Steigerwald wrote: Am Mittwoch, 16. November 2016, 15:43:36 CET schrieb Roman Mamedov: On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 11:25:00 +0100 Martin Steigerwald wrote: merkaba:~> mount -o degraded,clear_cache /dev/satafp1/backup /mnt/zeit mount:

Re: Announcing btrfs-dedupe

On 2016-11-14 16:10, Zygo Blaxell wrote: On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 02:56:51PM -0500, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2016-11-14 14:51, Zygo Blaxell wrote: Deduplicating an extent that may might be concurrently modified during the dedup is a reasonable userspace request. In the general case

Re: Announcing btrfs-dedupe

On 2016-11-14 14:51, Zygo Blaxell wrote: On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 01:39:02PM -0500, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2016-11-14 13:22, James Pharaoh wrote: One thing I am keen to understand is if BTRFS will automatically ignore a request to deduplicate a file if it is already deduplicated? Given

Re: Announcing btrfs-dedupe

On 2016-11-14 13:22, James Pharaoh wrote: On 14/11/16 19:07, Zygo Blaxell wrote: On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 07:49:51PM +0100, James Pharaoh wrote: Annoyingly I can't find this now, but I definitely remember reading someone, apparently someone knowledgable, claim that the latest version of the

Re: [PATCH] f2fs: support multiple devices

On 2016-11-09 21:29, Qu Wenruo wrote: At 11/10/2016 06:57 AM, Andreas Dilger wrote: On Nov 9, 2016, at 1:56 PM, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: This patch implements multiple devices support for f2fs. Given multiple devices by mkfs.f2fs, f2fs shows them entirely as one big volume

Re: btrfs scrub with unexpected results

On 2016-11-09 12:30, Tom Arild Naess wrote: On 09. nov. 2016 14:04, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2016-11-09 07:40, Tom Arild Naess wrote: Thanks for your lengthy answer. Just after posting my question I realized that the last reboot I did resulted in the filesystem being mounted RO. I

Re: btrfs scrub with unexpected results

speed, I'd upgrade RAM before upgrading the CPU most of the time for most systems). -- Tom Arild Naess On 03. nov. 2016 12:51, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2016-11-02 17:55, Tom Arild Naess wrote: Hello, I have been running btrfs on a file server and backup server for a couple of years now

Re: Could receive allow updating an existing subvolume?

On 2016-11-08 18:15, Ian Kelling wrote: On Tue, Nov 8, 2016, at 03:00 PM, Hugo Mills wrote: On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 02:48:56PM -0800, Ian Kelling wrote: It seems to be an artificially imposed limitation which hurts which hurts its usefulness. Let me know if this makes sense. If so, perhaps it

Re: Announcing btrfs-dedupe

On 2016-11-08 11:57, Darrick J. Wong wrote: On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 08:26:02AM -0500, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2016-11-07 21:40, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: On Mon, 2016-11-07 at 15:02 +0100, David Sterba wrote: I think adding a whole-file dedup mode to duperemove would be better

Re: Announcing btrfs-dedupe

On 2016-11-07 21:40, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: On Mon, 2016-11-07 at 15:02 +0100, David Sterba wrote: I think adding a whole-file dedup mode to duperemove would be better (from user's POV) than writing a whole new tool What would IMO be really good from a user's POV was, if one of the

Re: Problem with btrfs snapshots

On 2016-11-03 10:21, Peter Becker wrote: (copy for mainlinglist) 2016-11-03 15:16 GMT+01:00 Дмитрий Нечаев : Yes. We tried "sync" in our script but it doesn't help. It works only then we make one snapshot at a time. Even if we use "sync" before and after creating

Re: btrfs scrub with unexpected results

On 2016-11-02 17:55, Tom Arild Naess wrote: Hello, I have been running btrfs on a file server and backup server for a couple of years now, both set up as RAID 10. The file server has been running along without any problems since day one. My problems has been with the backup server. A little

Re: Snapper & apt-btrfs-snapshot on Ubuntu

On 2016-11-02 07:18, Ahmed Badr wrote: On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Alex Powell wrote: Taking a step back as well- there is also the possibility that you might not need snapshots I do need it for my root partition at least in the initial phase of setting

Re: Snapper & apt-btrfs-snapshot on Ubuntu

On 2016-11-02 07:25, Ahmed Badr wrote: On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 2:19 AM, Hans van Kranenburg wrote: While all of the snapshots with a matching parent_uuid are snapshots of the same thing in linear time for btrfs, the tools may have their own added administration

Re: Resizing BTRFS - raw partition

On 2016-11-02 05:18, Christian Völker wrote: Hi Hugo, thanks for the quick reply. Regarding version- I prefer to use stable Linux versionsand I am not going to upgrade just btrfs outside of the verndors builds. So I am stuck happily with this version. And I run Linux since more than

Re: Drive Replacement

On 2016-10-21 18:13, Peter Becker wrote: if you have >750 GB free you can simply remove one of the drives. btrfs device delete /dev/sd[x] /mnt #power off, replace device btrfs device add /dev/sd[y] /mnt Make sure to balance afterwards if you do this, the new disk will be pretty much unused

Re: Is it possible to speed up unlink()?

On 2016-10-20 13:33, ronnie sahlberg wrote: On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: On 2016-10-20 09:47, Timofey Titovets wrote: 2016-10-20 15:09 GMT+03:00 Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com>: On 2016-10-20 05:29, Timofey Ti

Re: Is it possible to speed up unlink()?

On 2016-10-20 11:26, Roman Mamedov wrote: On Thu, 20 Oct 2016 08:09:14 -0400 "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: So, it's possible to return unlink() early? or this a bad idea(and why)? I may be completely off about this, but I could have sworn that unlin

Re: Is it possible to speed up unlink()?

On 2016-10-20 09:47, Timofey Titovets wrote: 2016-10-20 15:09 GMT+03:00 Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com>: On 2016-10-20 05:29, Timofey Titovets wrote: Hi, i use btrfs for NFS VM replica storage and for NFS shared VM storage. At now i have a small problem what VM image deletio

Re: Is it possible to speed up unlink()?

On 2016-10-20 05:29, Timofey Titovets wrote: Hi, i use btrfs for NFS VM replica storage and for NFS shared VM storage. At now i have a small problem what VM image deletion took to long time and NFS client show a timeout on deletion (ESXi Storage migration as example). Kernel: Linux nfs05

Re: Monitoring Btrfs

On 2016-10-18 17:36, Anand Jain wrote: I would like to monitor my btrfs-filesystem for missing drives. This is actually correct behavior, the filesystem reports that it should have 6 devices, which is how it knows a device is missing. Missing - means missing at the time of mount. So

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >