Re: btrfs errors

Thanks for the help and clarification Qu. I will wait for the 5.3 and see what it brings. Best regars, Konstantin - Original Message - From: "Qu Wenruo" To: "Konstantin V. Gavrilenko" , "linux-btrfs" Sent: Wednesday, 14 August, 2019 1:24:42 AM Sub

btrfs errors

Hi list I have run the btrfs check, and that reported multiple errors on the FS. # btrfs check --readonly --force /dev/kubuntu-vg/lv_root root 9214 inode 6850330 errors 2001, no inode item, link count wrong unresolved ref dir 266982 index 22459 namelen 36 name 9621041045a17a475428a26fcf

Re: how to recover data from formatted btrfs partition

highly recommend it. Regards, Konstantin - Original Message - From: "Konstantin V. Gavrilenko" To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Sent: Sunday, 28 July, 2019 6:28:06 PM Subject: how to recover data from formatted btrfs partition Hi list, I accidentally formatted the exis

Re: how to recover data from formatted btrfs partition

>>On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 10:36 AM Konstantin V. Gavrilenko >> wrote: >> >> Hi list, >> >> I accidentally formatted the existing btrfs partition today with mkfs.btrfs >> Partition obviously table remained intact, while all three superblock 0,1,2 &

how to recover data from formatted btrfs partition

Hi list, I accidentally formatted the existing btrfs partition today with mkfs.btrfs Partition obviously table remained intact, while all three superblock 0,1,2 correspond to the new btrfs UUID. The original partition was daily snapshotted and was mounted using "compress-force=lzo,space_cache=v2

Re: btrfs subvolume mount with different options

Thanks, chattr +C is that's what I am currently using. Also you already answered my next question, why it is not possible to set +C attribute on the existing file :) Yours sincerely, Konstantin V. Gavrilenko - Original Message - From: "Roman Mamedov" To: "Kons

btrfs subvolume mount with different options

Hi list, just wondering whether it is possible to mount two subvolumes with different mount options, i.e. | |- /a defaults,compress-force=lza | |- /b defaults,nodatacow since, when both subvolumes are mounted, and when I change the option for one it is changed for all of them. thanks in a

Re: super_total_bytes 32004083023872 mismatch with fs_devices total_rw_bytes 64008166047744

[ 329.234618] BTRFS info (device sda): using free space tree [ 329.234620] BTRFS info (device sda): has skinny extents hope that helps and thanks for your help Yours sincerely, Konstantin V. Gavrilenko - Original Message - From: "Qu Wenruo" To: "Konstantin V. Gavrilen

super_total_bytes 32004083023872 mismatch with fs_devices total_rw_bytes 64008166047744

da 16.00MiB Unallocated: /dev/sda 11.07TiB Yours sincerely, Konstantin V. Gavrilenko -- 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.html

Re: Btrfs + compression = slow performance and high cpu usage

Hello again list. I thought I would clear the things out and describe what is happening with my troubled RAID setup. So having received the help from the list, I've initially run the full defragmentation of all the data and recompressed everything with zlib. That didn't help. Then I run the ful

Re: slow btrfs with a single kworker process using 100% CPU

unk + new parity) 2. The maximum compressed write (128k) would require the update of 1 chunk on each of the 4 data disks + 1 parity write Stefan what mount flags do you use? kos - Original Message - From: "Roman Mamedov" To: "Konstantin V. Gavrilenko" Cc: &q

Re: slow btrfs with a single kworker process using 100% CPU

g the data from the array and will be rebuilding it with 64 or 32 chunk size and checking the performance. VG, kos - Original Message - From: "Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG" To: "Konstantin V. Gavrilenko" Cc: "Marat Khalili" , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org S

Re: slow btrfs with a single kworker process using 100% CPU

Could be similar issue as what I had recently, with the RAID5 and 256kb chunk size. please provide more information about your RAID setup. p.s. you can also check the tread "Btrfs + compression = slow performance and high cpu usage" - Original Message - From: "Stefan Priebe - Profihost

Re: Btrfs + compression = slow performance and high cpu usage

- Original Message - From: "Peter Grandi" To: "Linux fs Btrfs" Sent: Tuesday, 1 August, 2017 3:14:07 PM Subject: Re: Btrfs + compression = slow performance and high cpu usage > Peter, I don't think the filefrag is showing the correct > fragmentation status of the file when the compressio

Re: Btrfs + compression = slow performance and high cpu usage

Peter, I don't think the filefrag is showing the correct fragmentation status of the file when the compression is used. At least the one that is installed by default in Ubuntu 16.04 - e2fsprogs | 1.42.13-1ubuntu1 So for example, fragmentation of compressed file is 320 times more then uncompres

Re: Btrfs + compression = slow performance and high cpu usage

Thanks for the comments. Initially the system performed well, I don't have the benchmark details written, but the compressed vs non compressed speeds were more or less similar. However, after several weeks of usage, the system started experiencing the described slowdowns, thus I started investig

Btrfs + compression = slow performance and high cpu usage

Hello list, I am stuck with a problem of btrfs slow performance when using compression. when the compress-force=lzo mount flag is enabled, the performance drops to 30-40 mb/s and one of the btrfs processes utilises 100% cpu time. mount options: btrfs relatime,discard,autodefrag,compress=lzo,co