Re: Rebalancing raid1 after adding a device

On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 at 19:45, Hugo Mills wrote: > >It would be really great if there was an ioctl that allowed you to > say things like "take the chunks of this block group and put them on > devices 2, 4 and 5 in RAID-5", because you could do a load of > optimisation with reshaping the FS in u

Re: Rebalancing raid1 after adding a device

Le 19 juin 2019 05:27:21 Andrei Borzenkov a écrit : 18.06.2019 21:45, Hugo Mills пишет: ... Is there a way to ask the block group allocator to prefer writing to a specific device during a balance? Something like -ddestdevid=N? This would just be a hint to the allocator and the usual const

Re: Rebalancing raid1 after adding a device

18.06.2019 21:45, Hugo Mills пишет: ... > >> Is there a way to ask the block group allocator to prefer writing to >> a specific device during a balance? Something like -ddestdevid=N? >> This would just be a hint to the allocator and the usual constraints >> would always apply (and prevail over the

Re: Rebalancing raid1 after adding a device

June 18, 2019 9:42 PM, "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" wrote: > On 2019-06-18 15:37, Stéphane Lesimple wrote: > >> June 18, 2019 9:06 PM, "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" wrote: >> On 2019-06-18 14:26, Stéphane Lesimple wrote: >>> [...] >> >> I don't need to have a perfectly balanced FS, I just want all the spac

Re: Rebalancing raid1 after adding a device

On 2019-06-18 15:37, Stéphane Lesimple wrote: June 18, 2019 9:06 PM, "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" wrote: On 2019-06-18 14:26, Stéphane Lesimple wrote: [...] I don't need to have a perfectly balanced FS, I just want all the space > to be allocatable. I tried using the -ddevid option but it only i

Re: Rebalancing raid1 after adding a device

June 18, 2019 9:06 PM, "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" wrote: > On 2019-06-18 14:26, Stéphane Lesimple wrote: > > [...] > >> I don't need to have a perfectly balanced FS, I just want all the space > to >> be allocatable. >> I tried using the -ddevid option but it only instructs btrfs to work on > >> th

Re: Rebalancing raid1 after adding a device

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 07:14:26PM +, DO NOT USE wrote: > June 18, 2019 8:45 PM, "Hugo Mills" wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 08:26:32PM +0200, Stéphane Lesimple wrote: > >> [...] > >> I tried using the -ddevid option but it only instructs btrfs to work > >> on the block groups allocated

Re: Rebalancing raid1 after adding a device

June 18, 2019 8:45 PM, "Hugo Mills" wrote: > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 08:26:32PM +0200, Stéphane Lesimple wrote: >> [...] >> Of course the solution is to run a balance, but as the filesystem is >> now quite big, I'd like to avoid running a full rebalance. This >> would be quite i/o intensive, woul

Re: Rebalancing raid1 after adding a device

On 2019-06-18 14:26, Stéphane Lesimple wrote: Hello, I've been a btrfs user for quite a number of years now, but it seems I need the wiseness of the btrfs gurus on this one! I have a 5-hdd btrfs raid1 setup with 4x3T+1x10T drives. A few days ago, I replaced one of the 3T by a new 10T, running

Re: Rebalancing raid1 after adding a device

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 12:58 PM Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > > On 2019-06-18 14:57, Hugo Mills wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 02:50:34PM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > >> On 2019-06-18 14:45, Hugo Mills wrote: > >>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 08:26:32PM +0200, Stéphane Lesimple wrote: > >

Re: Rebalancing raid1 after adding a device

On 2019-06-18 14:57, Hugo Mills wrote: On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 02:50:34PM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2019-06-18 14:45, Hugo Mills wrote: On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 08:26:32PM +0200, Stéphane Lesimple wrote: I've been a btrfs user for quite a number of years now, but it seems I need the

Re: Rebalancing raid1 after adding a device

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 12:50 PM Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > > On 2019-06-18 14:45, Hugo Mills wrote: > > -dlimit=100 will only move 100 GiB of data (i.e. 200 GiB), so it'll > > be a pretty limited change. You'll need to use a larger number than > > that if you want it to have a significant

Re: Rebalancing raid1 after adding a device

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 02:50:34PM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > On 2019-06-18 14:45, Hugo Mills wrote: > >On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 08:26:32PM +0200, Stéphane Lesimple wrote: > >>I've been a btrfs user for quite a number of years now, but it seems > >>I need the wiseness of the btrfs gurus on

Re: Rebalancing raid1 after adding a device

On 2019-06-18 14:45, Hugo Mills wrote: On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 08:26:32PM +0200, Stéphane Lesimple wrote: I've been a btrfs user for quite a number of years now, but it seems I need the wiseness of the btrfs gurus on this one! I have a 5-hdd btrfs raid1 setup with 4x3T+1x10T drives. A few days

Re: Rebalancing raid1 after adding a device

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 08:26:32PM +0200, Stéphane Lesimple wrote: > I've been a btrfs user for quite a number of years now, but it seems > I need the wiseness of the btrfs gurus on this one! > > I have a 5-hdd btrfs raid1 setup with 4x3T+1x10T drives. > A few days ago, I replaced one of the 3T by

Rebalancing raid1 after adding a device

Hello, I've been a btrfs user for quite a number of years now, but it seems I need the wiseness of the btrfs gurus on this one! I have a 5-hdd btrfs raid1 setup with 4x3T+1x10T drives. A few days ago, I replaced one of the 3T by a new 10T, running btrfs replace and then resizing the FS to use

Re: Rebalancing RAID1

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013, Stefan Behrens wrote: On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 22:56:19 +0100 (CET), Fredrik Tolf wrote: The oops cut can be found here: This scrub issue is fixed since Linux 3.8-rc1 with commit 4ded4f6 Btrfs: fix BUG() in scrub when first sup

Re: Rebalancing RAID1

On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 22:56:19 +0100 (CET), Fredrik Tolf wrote: > The oops cut can be found here: > This scrub issue is fixed since Linux 3.8-rc1 with commit 4ded4f6 Btrfs: fix BUG() in scrub when first superblock reading gives EIO -- To unsubscrib

Re: Rebalancing RAID1

On Fri, 15 Feb 2013, Martin Steigerwald wrote: So or so I think a kernel bug is involved here. Well, *some* kernel bug is certainly involved. :) I did wipe the filesystem off the device and reinserted it as a new device into the filesystem. After that, "btrfs fi show" gave me the following:

Re: Rebalancing RAID1

Am Freitag, 15. Februar 2013 schrieb Fredrik Tolf: > On Thu, 14 Feb 2013, Martin Steigerwald wrote: […] > > I´d restart the machine, see that BTRFS is using both devices again and > > then try the balance again. > > I mentioned it in another mail, but I'd very much prefer not to do that. > I'd lik

Re: Rebalancing RAID1

Fredrik Tolf wrote (ao): > How do I remove the conception of the missing device so that I can > replace it? Should I simply add the replacement first, and only > after that remove the missing device? > > If the latter, how can I "scratch" the previous btrfs metadata from > this "replacement" drive

Re: Rebalancing RAID1

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013, Chris Murphy wrote: Also, is a virtual machine being used in any of this, either as host or guest? Nope. -- Fredrik Tolf -- 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

Re: Rebalancing RAID1

On Feb 14, 2013, at 8:56 PM, Fredrik Tolf wrote: > > As you could see from the source code I quoted, the message was, in fact, not > prepended with "btrfs: ". Yep. That's why I'm not so far convinced it's btrfs induced. But clearly btrfs is adversely impacted, and tentatively I'm unsure if t

Re: Rebalancing RAID1

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013, Chris Murphy wrote: On Feb 14, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Fredrik Tolf wrote: So it's either from btrfs, or from the buffer cache, and seeing as how it appears with other btrfs messages, I'd be willing to bet on the former. :) Unclear. Google searches reveal this identical erro

Re: Rebalancing RAID1

On Feb 14, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Fredrik Tolf wrote: > > So it's either from btrfs, or from the buffer cache, and seeing as how it > appears with other btrfs messages, I'd be willing to bet on the former. :) Unclear. Google searches reveal this identical error comes up in non-btrfs contexts. I'd

Re: Rebalancing RAID1

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013, Chris Murphy wrote: Yeah he's getting a lot of these, and I don't know what it is: Feb 14 08:32:30 nerv kernel: [180511.760850] lost page write due to I/O error on /dev/sdd1 It's not tied to btrfs or libata so I don't think it's the drive itself reporting the write erro

Re: Rebalancing RAID1

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013, Martin Steigerwald wrote: Am Mittwoch, 13. Februar 2013 schrieb Fredrik Tolf: You started the balance after above btrfs fi show command? I did. Then its obvious to me: For some reason BTRFS is still trying to write to /dev/sdd, which isn´t there anymore. That perfectly e

Re: Rebalancing RAID1

On Feb 14, 2013, at 1:56 PM, Hugo Mills wrote: >> > > Correct, but *all* other single-value (or small-number-of-values) > displays of space usage fail in similar ways. We've(*) had this > discussion out on this mailing list many times before. All "simple" > displays of disk usage will cause

Re: Rebalancing RAID1

On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 11:05:39AM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Feb 14, 2013, at 1:59 AM, Hugo Mills wrote: > >> > >> Data, RAID1: total=2.66TB, used=2.66TB > > > > This is the amount of actual useful data (i.e. what you see with du > > or ls -l). Double this (because it's RAID-1) to get

Re: Rebalancing RAID1

On Feb 14, 2013, at 7:44 AM, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > For some reason BTRFS is still trying to write to /dev/sdd, which isn´t > there anymore. That perfectly explains those lost page writes for me. If > that is the case, this seems to me like a serious bug in BTRFS. Following the ICRC ABRT e

Re: Rebalancing RAID1

On Feb 14, 2013, at 1:59 AM, Hugo Mills wrote: >> >> Data, RAID1: total=2.66TB, used=2.66TB > > This is the amount of actual useful data (i.e. what you see with du > or ls -l). Double this (because it's RAID-1) to get the number of > bytes or raw storage used. Right, the decoder ring. Effect

Re: Rebalancing RAID1

Am Mittwoch, 13. Februar 2013 schrieb Fredrik Tolf: > Dear list, Hi Fredrik, > I'm sorry if this is a dumb n3wb question, but I couldn't find anything > about it, so please bear with me. > > I just decided to try BtrFS for the first time, to replace an old ReiserFS > data partition currently o

Re: Rebalancing RAID1

On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 01:41:04AM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Feb 14, 2013, at 12:58 AM, Fredrik Tolf wrote: > > > > Feb 14 08:32:30 nerv kernel: [180511.760850] lost page write due to I/O > > error on /dev/sdd1 > > Well, someone else might comment on what that is exactly, I'm not getti

Re: Rebalancing RAID1

On Feb 14, 2013, at 12:58 AM, Fredrik Tolf wrote: > > Feb 14 08:32:30 nerv kernel: [180511.760850] lost page write due to I/O error > on /dev/sdd1 Well, someone else might comment on what that is exactly, I'm not getting conclusive google hits on this. Sometimes it's fixed by going to a newer

Re: Rebalancing RAID1

On Feb 13, 2013, at 11:42 PM, Fredrik Tolf wrote: > It's worth noting that I still haven't un- and remounted the filesystem since > the drive disconnected. I suggest capturing the current dmesg, reboot, and see if the btrfs volume will mount read-only without complaints in dmesg. Also, is a

Re: Rebalancing RAID1

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013, Chris Murphy wrote: So the question is whether the cable problem has actually been fixed, and if you're still getting ICRC errors from the kernel. I'm not getting any block-layer errors from the kernel. The errors I posted originally are the only ones I'm getting. Previ

Re: Rebalancing RAID1

On Feb 13, 2013, at 11:42 PM, Fredrik Tolf wrote: > > That's interesting to read. I haven't ever actually experienced missing a bad > sector reported by a hard drive, though; and not for a lack of experience > with bad sectors. That experience is consistent with a consumer drive with an ECC

Re: Rebalancing RAID1

On Wed, 13 Feb 2013, Chris Murphy wrote: On Feb 12, 2013, at 11:18 PM, Fredrik Tolf wrote: That's not typical for actual media problems, in my experience. :) Quite typical, because these drives don't support SCTERC which almost certainly means their error timeouts are well above that of the

Re: Rebalancing RAID1

On Feb 12, 2013, at 11:18 PM, Fredrik Tolf wrote: > > >> smartctl -l scterc /dev/sdX > > "Warning: device does not support SCT Error Recovery Control command" > > Doesn't seem that way to me; partly because of the SMART data, and partly > because of the errors that were logged as the drive f

Re: Rebalancing RAID1

On Tue, 12 Feb 2013, Chris Murphy wrote: On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:01 PM, Fredrik Tolf wrote: mkfs.btrfs -d raid -m raid1 /dev/sd{d,e}1 Is that a typo? -d raid isn't valid. Ah yes, sorry. That was a typo. What do you get for: btrfs fi df /mnt $ sudo ./btrfs fi df /mnt Data, RAID1: total=2

Re: Rebalancing RAID1

On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:01 PM, Fredrik Tolf wrote: > > mkfs.btrfs -d raid -m raid1 /dev/sd{d,e}1 Is that a typo? -d raid isn't valid. What do you get for: btrfs fi df /mnt Please report the result for each drive: smartctl -a /dev/sdX smartctl -l scterc /dev/sdX > > Also, why does it say that

Rebalancing RAID1

Dear list, I'm sorry if this is a dumb n3wb question, but I couldn't find anything about it, so please bear with me. I just decided to try BtrFS for the first time, to replace an old ReiserFS data partition currently on a mdadm mirror. To do so, I'm using two 3 TB disks that were initially d

Re: Errors in rebalancing RAID1 array after disk failure.

Oops, please scratch the attachment of the mail before, that patch is not yet finished. I forgot to remove it before hitting the send button :( Sorry. > I'll send a patch tomorrow to prevent the scrub crash in this situation. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrf

Re: Errors in rebalancing RAID1 array after disk failure.

On 5/2/2012 5:22 PM, David Sterba wrote: > On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 03:01:04PM +0200, Marco L. Crociani wrote: >> ./btrfs device delete missing /mnt/sda3 >> ERROR: error removing the device 'missing' - Input/output error >> >> >> Apr 30 13:17:57 evo kernel: [ 108.866205] btrfs: allowing degraded mo

Re: Errors in rebalancing RAID1 array after disk failure.

> Is there anything I missed for steps to reproduce it? All the story is in previous mails. http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/16829 http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org/msg15949.html First mail is missing from mail-archive... Summary: Some damaged sectors on

Re: Errors in rebalancing RAID1 array after disk failure.

On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 04:59:03PM +0200, Marco L. Crociani wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 05:42:05PM +0200, Marco L. Crociani wrote: > > > Apr 19 17:38:41 evo kernel: [  347.661964]  [] > > > > btrfs_ioctl_dev_info+0x15c/0x1a0 [btrfs] [...] > I was on 3.4-rc5! You really saw this crash with 3

Re: Errors in rebalancing RAID1 array after disk failure.

On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 03:01:04PM +0200, Marco L. Crociani wrote: > ./btrfs device delete missing /mnt/sda3 > ERROR: error removing the device 'missing' - Input/output error > > > Apr 30 13:17:57 evo kernel: [ 108.866205] btrfs: allowing degraded mounts > Apr 30 13:17:57 evo kernel: [ 108.8662

Re: Errors in rebalancing RAID1 array after disk failure.

On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 4:54 PM, David Sterba wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 05:42:05PM +0200, Marco L. Crociani wrote: > > Apr 19 17:38:41 evo kernel: [  347.661915] Call Trace: > > Apr 19 17:38:41 evo kernel: [  347.661964]  [] > > > btrfs_ioctl_dev_info+0x15c/0x1a0 [btrfs] > > Apr 19 17:38:4

Re: Errors in rebalancing RAID1 array after disk failure.

On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 05:42:05PM +0200, Marco L. Crociani wrote: > Apr 19 17:38:41 evo kernel: [ 347.661915] Call Trace: > Apr 19 17:38:41 evo kernel: [ 347.661964] [] > > btrfs_ioctl_dev_info+0x15c/0x1a0 [btrfs] > Apr 19 17:38:41 evo kernel: [ 347.662013] [] > > btrfs_ioctl+0x571/0x6c0 [b

Re: Errors in rebalancing RAID1 array after disk failure.

Hi all, today another episode... I have compiled and tried kernel 3.4-rc5 ./btrfs fi sh Label: 'RootFS' uuid: c87975a0-a575-405e-9890-d3f7f25bbd96 Total devices 3 FS bytes used 1006.67GB devid3 size 1.75TB used 357.00GB path /dev/sdb3 devid1 size 1.75TB used 1.34TB

Re: Errors in rebalancing RAID1 array after disk failure.

Today I tried scrub... Apr 19 17:36:01 evo kernel: [ 187.932297] device label RootFS devid 1 transid 47046 /dev/sda3 Apr 19 17:36:02 evo kernel: [ 188.145858] device label RootFS devid 3 transid 47046 /dev/sdb3 Apr 19 17:36:19 evo kernel: [ 205.483044] device label RootFS devid 1 transid 47046

Re: Errors in rebalancing RAID1 array after disk failure.

On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:56 AM, Marco L. Crociani wrote: > On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 3:46 PM, David Sterba wrote: >> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 06:39:12PM +0200, Marco L. Crociani wrote: >>> Apr 14 18:07:52 evo kernel: [  431.054709] btrfs: relocating block >>> group 1401002393600 flags 17 >>> Apr 1

Re: Errors in rebalancing RAID1 array after disk failure.

On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 3:46 PM, David Sterba wrote: > On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 06:39:12PM +0200, Marco L. Crociani wrote: >> Apr 14 18:07:52 evo kernel: [  431.054709] btrfs: relocating block >> group 1401002393600 flags 17 >> Apr 14 18:08:14 evo kernel: [  453.506541] btrfs csum failed ino 362 >>

Re: Errors in rebalancing RAID1 array after disk failure.

On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 06:39:12PM +0200, Marco L. Crociani wrote: > Apr 14 18:07:52 evo kernel: [  431.054709] btrfs: relocating block > group 1401002393600 flags 17 > Apr 14 18:08:14 evo kernel: [  453.506541] btrfs csum failed ino 362 > off 910946304 csum 432355644 private 175165154 The failed