Am Tue, 22 Jul 2014 03:26:39 + (UTC)
schrieb Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net:
Marc Joliet posted on Tue, 22 Jul 2014 01:30:22 +0200 as excerpted:
And now that the background deletion of the old snapshots is done, the file
system ended up at:
# btrfs filesystem df
On 20/07/14 14:59, Duncan wrote:
Marc Joliet posted on Sun, 20 Jul 2014 12:22:33 +0200 as excerpted:
On the other hand, the wiki [0] says that defragmentation (and
balancing) is optional, and the only reason stated for doing either is
because they will have impact on performance.
Yes. That's
Am Sun, 20 Jul 2014 21:44:40 +0200
schrieb Marc Joliet mar...@gmx.de:
[...]
What I did:
- delete the single largest file on the file system, a 12 GB VM image, along
with all subvolumes that contained it
- rsync it over again
[...]
I want to point out at this point, though, that doing
Am Mon, 21 Jul 2014 15:22:16 +0200
schrieb Marc Joliet mar...@gmx.de:
Am Sun, 20 Jul 2014 21:44:40 +0200
schrieb Marc Joliet mar...@gmx.de:
[...]
What I did:
- delete the single largest file on the file system, a 12 GB VM image, along
with all subvolumes that contained it
-
Am Tue, 22 Jul 2014 00:30:57 +0200
schrieb Marc Joliet mar...@gmx.de:
Am Mon, 21 Jul 2014 15:22:16 +0200
schrieb Marc Joliet mar...@gmx.de:
Am Sun, 20 Jul 2014 21:44:40 +0200
schrieb Marc Joliet mar...@gmx.de:
[...]
What I did:
- delete the single largest file on the file
Marc Joliet posted on Tue, 22 Jul 2014 01:30:22 +0200 as excerpted:
And now that the background deletion of the old snapshots is done, the file
system ended up at:
# btrfs filesystem df /run/media/marcec/MARCEC_BACKUP
Data, single: total=219.00GiB, used=140.13GiB
System, DUP:
Am Sat, 19 Jul 2014 19:11:00 -0600
schrieb Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com:
I'm seeing this also in the 2nd dmesg:
[ 249.893310] BTRFS error (device sdg2): free space inode generation (0) did
not match free space cache generation (26286)
So you could try umounting the volume. And
Am Sat, 19 Jul 2014 18:53:03 -0600
schrieb Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com:
On Jul 19, 2014, at 2:58 PM, Marc Joliet mar...@gmx.de wrote:
Am Sat, 19 Jul 2014 22:10:51 +0200
schrieb Marc Joliet mar...@gmx.de:
[...]
Another random idea: the number of errors decreased the
Am Sun, 20 Jul 2014 02:39:27 + (UTC)
schrieb Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net:
Chris Murphy posted on Sat, 19 Jul 2014 11:38:08 -0600 as excerpted:
I'm not sure of the reason for the BTRFS info (device sdg2): 2 enospc
errors during balance but it seems informational rather than either a
Am Sun, 20 Jul 2014 12:22:33 +0200
schrieb Marc Joliet mar...@gmx.de:
[...]
I'll try this and see, but I think I have more files 1GB than would account
for this error (which comes towards the end of the balance when only a few
chunks are left). I'll see what find /mnt -type f -size +1G finds
Marc Joliet posted on Sun, 20 Jul 2014 12:22:33 +0200 as excerpted:
On the other hand, the wiki [0] says that defragmentation (and
balancing) is optional, and the only reason stated for doing either is
because they will have impact on performance.
Yes. That's what threw off the other guy as
Marc Joliet posted on Sun, 20 Jul 2014 21:44:40 +0200 as excerpted:
Am Sun, 20 Jul 2014 13:40:54 +0200 schrieb Marc Joliet mar...@gmx.de:
Am Sun, 20 Jul 2014 12:22:33 +0200 schrieb Marc Joliet mar...@gmx.de:
[...]
I'll try this and see, but I think I have more files 1GB than would
The 2nd dmesg (didn't look at the 1st), has many instances like this;
[96241.882138] ata2.00: exception Emask 0x1 SAct 0x7ffe0fff SErr 0x0 action 0x6
frozen
[96241.882139] ata2.00: Ata error. fis:0x21
[96241.882142] ata2.00: failed command: READ FPDMA QUEUED
[96241.882148] ata2.00: cmd
Am Sat, 19 Jul 2014 22:10:51 +0200
schrieb Marc Joliet mar...@gmx.de:
[...]
Another random idea: the number of errors decreased the second time I ran
balance (from 4 to 2), I could run another full balance and see if it keeps
decreasing.
Well, this time there were still 2 ENOSPC errors. But
On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 11:38:08AM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
[96241.882138] ata2.00: exception Emask 0x1 SAct 0x7ffe0fff SErr 0x0 action
0x6 frozen
[96241.882139] ata2.00: Ata error. fis:0x21
[96241.882142] ata2.00: failed command: READ FPDMA QUEUED
[96241.882148] ata2.00: cmd
On Jul 19, 2014, at 2:58 PM, Marc Joliet mar...@gmx.de wrote:
Am Sat, 19 Jul 2014 22:10:51 +0200
schrieb Marc Joliet mar...@gmx.de:
[...]
Another random idea: the number of errors decreased the second time I ran
balance (from 4 to 2), I could run another full balance and see if it keeps
Chris Murphy posted on Sat, 19 Jul 2014 11:38:08 -0600 as excerpted:
I'm not sure of the reason for the BTRFS info (device sdg2): 2 enospc
errors during balance but it seems informational rather than either a
warning or problem. I'd treat ext4-btrfs converted file systems to be
something of
17 matches
Mail list logo