Am Montag, 4. August 2014, 11:09:23 schrieb Peter Waller:
> On 4 August 2014 10:39, Chris Samuel wrote:
> > On Mon, 4 Aug 2014 09:14:19 AM Peter Waller wrote:
> >> All of this is *very* surprising.
> >
> > Hmm, it shouldn't be, the ENOSPC issues are well known and have been
> > discussed here for
Am Dienstag, 5. August 2014, 14:58:34 schrieb Clemens Eisserer:
> Hi Russel,
>
> > The Debian installer has BTRFS in a list of filesystems to choose with no
> > special notice about it. I'm thinking of filing a Debian bug requesting
> > that they put a warning against it.
>
> As long as it is no
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 8:38 PM, ronnie sahlberg
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 5:20 AM, Russell Coker wrote:
>
>>
>> Based on what I've read on this list it seems that BTRFS is less stable in
>> 3.15 than in 3.14. Even 3.14 isn't something I'd recommend to random people
>> who want something to
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 5:20 AM, Russell Coker wrote:
>
> Based on what I've read on this list it seems that BTRFS is less stable in
> 3.15 than in 3.14. Even 3.14 isn't something I'd recommend to random people
> who want something to just work.
>
> The Debian installer has BTRFS in a list of fil
Russell Coker posted on Tue, 05 Aug 2014 22:20:33 +1000 as excerpted:
> The Debian installer has BTRFS in a list of filesystems to choose with
> no special notice about it. I'm thinking of filing a Debian bug
> requesting that they put a warning against it.
>
> What do people here think?
You al
On Tue, 5 Aug 2014 10:20:33 PM Russell Coker wrote:
> The Debian installer has BTRFS in a list of filesystems to choose with no
> special notice about it. I'm thinking of filing a Debian bug requesting
> that they put a warning against it.
I think it's a good plan. People should be aware of t
On 5 August 2014 13:58, Clemens Eisserer wrote:
> As long as it is not selected as the default filesystem, I think it is fine.
> Other distributions have been offering btrfs for some time now, too.
How do you warn non-BTRFS-developers in this case that they need to
run a regular rebalance or they
Hi Russel,
> The Debian installer has BTRFS in a list of filesystems to choose with no
> special notice about it. I'm thinking of filing a Debian bug requesting that
> they put a warning against it.
As long as it is not selected as the default filesystem, I think it is fine.
Other distributions
On Tue, 5 Aug 2014 08:06:12 Duncan wrote:
> Which is why I'm not particularly happy with seeing all the "btrfs is
> still not stable, use at your own risk" warnings disappearing. With them
> there, people who chose to run btrfs /could/ be expected to have done
> their research and have btrfs sp
On Tue, 5 Aug 2014 16:51:44 Qu Wenruo wrote:
> In fact such "defeat"(or whatever) is not really btrfs only problem.
> In ext*, there is still similiar behavior: ext* has a up limit on the
> number of inode after mkfs.
> (When you mkfs.ext*, you are prompt the up limit of inodes)
> However other me
On 2014-08-05 04:20, Duncan wrote:
> Austin S Hemmelgarn posted on Mon, 04 Aug 2014 13:09:23 -0400 as
> excerpted:
>
>> Think of each chunk like a box, and each block as a block, and that you
>> have two different types of block (data and metadata) and two different
>> types of box (also data and
Original Message
Subject: Re: ENOSPC with mkdir and rename
From: Peter Waller
To: Qu Wenruo
Date: 2014年08月04日 16:14
Thanks for responses.
All of this is *very* surprising. I'm not new to BTRFS, I've been
using it on my own machines for multiple years. I didn'
Austin S Hemmelgarn posted on Mon, 04 Aug 2014 13:09:23 -0400 as
excerpted:
> Think of each chunk like a box, and each block as a block, and that you
> have two different types of block (data and metadata) and two different
> types of box (also data and metadata). The data boxes are four times the
Chris Samuel posted on Mon, 04 Aug 2014 20:24:46 +1000 as excerpted:
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2014 11:56:46 AM Clemens Eisserer wrote:
>
>> Which doesn't protect the *average* user from running into issues like
>> this.
>
> No, but they need to be aware of it.
Actually, an ordinary user/admin /should/ h
Hi Peter,
On Mon, 4 Aug 2014 11:59:19 AM Peter Waller wrote:
> On 4 August 2014 11:50, Chris Samuel wrote:
>
> > To be honest I'm not sure I'd suggest btrfs for production use at all at
> > present, it's only recently been unmarked as experimental and to be honest
> > I feel that was premature.
On 2014-08-04 06:31, Peter Waller wrote:
> Thanks Hugo, this is the most informative e-mail yet! (more inline)
>
> On 4 August 2014 11:22, Hugo Mills wrote:
>>
>> * btrfs fi show
>> - look at the total and used values. If used < total, you're OK.
>> If used == total, then you could pot
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Russell Coker wrote:
> If you regularly run a scrub with options such as "-dusage=50 -musage=10" then
> the amount of free space in metadata chunks will tend to be a lot greater than
> that in data chunks.
>
Just to clarify for posterity, I'm pretty sure you meant
On Mon, 4 Aug 2014 14:17:02 Peter Waller wrote:
> For anyone else having this problem, this article is fairly useful for
> understanding disk full problems and rebalance:
>
> http://marc.merlins.org/perso/btrfs/post_2014-05-04_Fixing-Btrfs-Filesystem->
> Full-Problems.html
>
> It actually covers
On 2014-08-04 10:11, Peter Waller wrote:
> On 4 August 2014 15:02, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
>> I really disagree with the statement that adding more storage is
>> difficult or expensive, all you need to do is plug in a 2G USB flash
>> drive, or allocate a ramdisk, and add the device to the files
On 4 August 2014 15:02, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
> I really disagree with the statement that adding more storage is
> difficult or expensive, all you need to do is plug in a 2G USB flash
> drive, or allocate a ramdisk, and add the device to the filesystem only
> long enough to do a full balance.
On 2014-08-04 09:17, Peter Waller wrote:
> For anyone else having this problem, this article is fairly useful for
> understanding disk full problems and rebalance:
>
> http://marc.merlins.org/perso/btrfs/post_2014-05-04_Fixing-Btrfs-Filesystem-Full-Problems.html
>
> It actually covers the problem
On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 02:17:02PM +0100, Peter Waller wrote:
> For anyone else having this problem, this article is fairly useful for
> understanding disk full problems and rebalance:
>
> http://marc.merlins.org/perso/btrfs/post_2014-05-04_Fixing-Btrfs-Filesystem-Full-Problems.html
>
> It actual
For anyone else having this problem, this article is fairly useful for
understanding disk full problems and rebalance:
http://marc.merlins.org/perso/btrfs/post_2014-05-04_Fixing-Btrfs-Filesystem-Full-Problems.html
It actually covers the problem that I had, which is that a rebalance
can't take pla
On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 01:04:25PM +0200, Clemens Eisserer wrote:
> Hi Hugo,
>
> >On the 3.15+ kernels, the block reserve is split out of metadata
> > and reported separately. This helps with the following process:
>
> Thanks a lot for pointing this out, I hadn't noticed this change until now
On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 11:48:17AM +0100, Peter Waller wrote:
> On 4 August 2014 11:39, Hugo Mills wrote:
> >> > * btrfs fi df
> >> > - look at metadata used vs total. If these are close to zero (on
> >> > 3.15+) or close to 512 MiB (on <3.15), then you are in danger of
> >> > ENO
Hi Hugo,
>On the 3.15+ kernels, the block reserve is split out of metadata
> and reported separately. This helps with the following process:
Thanks a lot for pointing this out, I hadn't noticed this change until now.
One thing I didn't find any information about is the overhead
introduced by
On 4 August 2014 11:50, Chris Samuel wrote:
> To be honest I'm not sure I'd suggest btrfs for production use at all at
> present, it's only recently been unmarked as experimental and to be honest I
> feel that was premature. :-(
Thanks for the honest answer.
There are very positive signals out t
On Mon, 4 Aug 2014 11:09:23 AM Peter Waller wrote:
> I accept that. It's all very well if you read the BTRFS list and/or
> are a BTRFS developer. But if you're trying to work it out in the heat
> of battle, as we have sysadmins who would have to, there is a
> combination of things here that makes
Thanks Hugo, this is the most informative e-mail yet! (more inline)
On 4 August 2014 11:22, Hugo Mills wrote:
>
> * btrfs fi show
> - look at the total and used values. If used < total, you're OK.
> If used == total, then you could potentially hit ENOSPC.
Another thing which is unclea
On 4 August 2014 11:39, Hugo Mills wrote:
>> > * btrfs fi df
>> > - look at metadata used vs total. If these are close to zero (on
>> > 3.15+) or close to 512 MiB (on <3.15), then you are in danger of
>> > ENOSPC.
>>
>> Hmm. It's unfortunate that this could indicate an amount of s
On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 11:31:57AM +0100, Peter Waller wrote:
> Thanks Hugo, this is the most informative e-mail yet! (more inline)
>
> On 4 August 2014 11:22, Hugo Mills wrote:
> >
> > * btrfs fi show
> > - look at the total and used values. If used < total, you're OK.
> > If used ==
On Mon, 4 Aug 2014 11:56:46 AM Clemens Eisserer wrote:
> Which doesn't protect the *average* user from running into issues like this.
No, but they need to be aware of it.
> Just because it has been discussed, doesn't mean nothing can/should be done
> about it
Indeed, and a lot of work has been
On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 11:09:23AM +0100, Peter Waller wrote:
> On 4 August 2014 10:39, Chris Samuel wrote:
> > On Mon, 4 Aug 2014 09:14:19 AM Peter Waller wrote:
> >> All of this is *very* surprising.
> >
> > Hmm, it shouldn't be, the ENOSPC issues are well known and have been
> > discussed
> >
On 4 August 2014 10:39, Chris Samuel wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2014 09:14:19 AM Peter Waller wrote:
>> All of this is *very* surprising.
>
> Hmm, it shouldn't be, the ENOSPC issues are well known and have been discussed
> here for years.
I accept that. It's all very well if you read the BTRFS list a
Hi Chris,
> Hmm, it shouldn't be, the ENOSPC issues are well known and have been discussed
> here for years.
Which doesn't protect the *average* user from running into issues like this.
Just because it has been discussed, doesn't mean nothing can/should be
done about it ;)
However, as I am only
On Mon, 4 Aug 2014 09:14:19 AM Peter Waller wrote:
> All of this is *very* surprising.
Hmm, it shouldn't be, the ENOSPC issues are well known and have been discussed
here for years.
cheers,
Chris
--
Chris Samuel : http://www.csamuel.org/ : Melbourne, VIC
--
To unsubscribe from this list
Hi Peter,
> All of this is *very* surprising. I'm not new to BTRFS, I've been
> using it on my own machines for multiple years. I didn't realise there
> was an un-holstered footgun on my lap at this point. How can it be
> made clear how to avoid the ENOSPC problem to myself and other
> sysadmins?
just that no-one has gotten around to yet?
Thanks,
- Peter
On 4 August 2014 02:38, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Hi, Peter
>
> Some explain below inline.
>
> Original Message
> Subject: ENOSPC with mkdir and rename
> From: Peter Waller
> To:
> Date: 2014年08
Hi, Peter
Some explain below inline.
Original Message
Subject: ENOSPC with mkdir and rename
From: Peter Waller
To:
Date: 2014年08月03日 07:35
Hi All,
My TL;DR questions are at the bottom, before the stack trace.
I'm running Ubuntu 14.04. I wonder if this problem is relat
On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 10:39 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Aug 2014 00:35:28 Peter Waller wrote:
>> I'm running Ubuntu 14.04. I wonder if this problem is related to the
>> thread titled "Machine lockup due to btrfs-transaction on AWS EC2
>>
>> Ubuntu 14.04" which I started on the 29th of Ju
On Sun, 3 Aug 2014 00:35:28 Peter Waller wrote:
> I'm running Ubuntu 14.04. I wonder if this problem is related to the
> thread titled "Machine lockup due to btrfs-transaction on AWS EC2
>
> Ubuntu 14.04" which I started on the 29th of July:
> > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrf
On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Mitch Harder
wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Peter Waller wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> My TL;DR questions are at the bottom, before the stack trace.
>>
>> I'm running Ubuntu 14.04. I wonder if this problem is related to the
>> thread titled "Machine lockup due
On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Peter Waller wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> My TL;DR questions are at the bottom, before the stack trace.
>
> I'm running Ubuntu 14.04. I wonder if this problem is related to the
> thread titled "Machine lockup due to btrfs-transaction on AWS EC2
> Ubuntu 14.04" which I start
Hi All,
My TL;DR questions are at the bottom, before the stack trace.
I'm running Ubuntu 14.04. I wonder if this problem is related to the
thread titled "Machine lockup due to btrfs-transaction on AWS EC2
Ubuntu 14.04" which I started on the 29th of July:
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.fil
44 matches
Mail list logo
