On Mar 3, 2014, at 11:42 PM, Hendrik Friedel wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
>
>> It might be worth finding large files to defragment. See the ENOSPC errors
>> during raid1 rebalance thread. It sounds like it might be possible for some
>> fragmented files to be stuck across multiple chunks, preventing
Hi Chris,
It might be worth finding large files to defragment. See the ENOSPC errors
during raid1 rebalance thread. It sounds like it might be possible for some
fragmented files to be stuck across multiple chunks, preventing conversion.
I moved 400Gb from my other (but full) disc to the btr
On Mar 2, 2014, at 11:39 AM, Hendrik Friedel wrote:
>
> I am lacking space why I did the balance (to free one of the two discs).
> So, unless the above helps, it seems, I need to buy another HDD?
It might be worth finding large files to defragment. See the ENOSPC errors
during raid1 rebalance
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014, Chris Murphy wrote:
> Also, 10 hours to balance two disks at 2.3TB seems like a long time. I'm
> not sure if that's expected.
I just had a system with a single 120G Intel SSD and 54G of data stored take 3
hours for a balance.
Balance seems to be a very slow operation and it
Hi Chris, hi Ducan,
>> time ./btrfs balance start -dconvert=single,soft /mnt/BTRFS/Video/
ERROR: error during balancing '/mnt/BTRFS/Video/' - No space left on device
There may be more info in syslog - try dmesg | tail
real0m23.803s
user0m0.000s
sys 0m1.070s
dmesg:
[697498.761318]
On Feb 18, 2014, at 2:55 PM, Hendrik Friedel wrote:
> Hello,
>
> >> It looks like everything is single except for 4GB of data which is still
>>> raid0. Weird. There should be a bunch of messages in dmesg during a
>>> normal/successful balance, and either something mentioned or missing
>>> might
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 03:20:58AM +, Duncan wrote:
> Chris Murphy posted on Sun, 16 Feb 2014 12:54:44 -0700 as excerpted:
> > Also, 10 hours to balance two disks at 2.3TB seems like a long time. I'm
> > not sure if that's expected.
>
> FWIW, I think you may not realize how big 2.3 TiB is, and
Chris Murphy posted on Sun, 16 Feb 2014 12:54:44 -0700 as excerpted:
> On Feb 16, 2014, at 12:18 PM, Hendrik Friedel
> wrote:
[On balance converting to single from raidN:]
>> I think it didn't work.
>>
>> btrfs balance start -dconvert=single -mconvert=single -sconvert=single
>> --force /mnt/B
On Feb 16, 2014, at 12:18 PM, Hendrik Friedel wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> thanks for your hint.
> >> No. You said you need to recreate the file system, and only have these two
> >> devices and therefore must remove one device. You can't achieve that with
> >> raid1 which requires minimum two devic
Hi Chris,
thanks for your hint.
>> No. You said you need to recreate the file system, and only have
these two devices and therefore must remove one device. You can't
achieve that with raid1 which requires minimum two devices.
-dconvert=single -mconvert=dup -sconvert=dup
Actually, I'm remind
On Feb 10, 2014, at 6:45 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Feb 9, 2014, at 1:36 AM, Hendrik Friedel wrote:
>>
>> Yes, but I can create that space.
>> So, for me the next steps would be to:
>> -generate enough room on the filesystem
>> -btrfs balance start -dconvert=raid1 -mconvert=raid1 /mnt/BTR
On Feb 9, 2014, at 1:36 AM, Hendrik Friedel wrote:
>
> Yes, but I can create that space.
> So, for me the next steps would be to:
> -generate enough room on the filesystem
> -btrfs balance start -dconvert=raid1 -mconvert=raid1 /mnt/BTRFS/Video
> -btrfs device delete /dev/sdc1 /mnt/BTRFS/Video
>
Hi Chris,
thanks for your reply.
>> ./btrfs filesystem show /dev/sdb1
Label: none uuid: 989306aa-d291-4752-8477-0baf94f8c42f
Total devices 2 FS bytes used 3.47TiB
devid1 size 2.73TiB used 1.74TiB path /dev/sdb1
devid2 size 2.73TiB used 1.74TiB path /dev/sdc1
I
On Feb 8, 2014, at 3:01 PM, Hendrik Friedel wrote:
> Hello,
>
>> Ok.
>> I think, I do/did have some symptoms, but I cannot exclude other reasons..
>> -High Load without high cpu-usage (io was the bottleneck)
>> -Just now: transfer from one directory to the other on the same
>> subvolume (from /
Hello,
Ok.
I think, I do/did have some symptoms, but I cannot exclude other reasons..
-High Load without high cpu-usage (io was the bottleneck)
-Just now: transfer from one directory to the other on the same
subvolume (from /mnt/subvol/A/B to /mnt/subvol/A) I get 1.2MB/s instead
of > 60.
-For so
Hello,
Yes. Here I mount the three subvolumes:
Does scrubbing the volume give any errors?
Last time I did (that was after I discovered the first errors in
btrfsck) scrub, it found no error. But I will re-check asap.
As to the error messages: I do not know how critical those are.
I usua
Hello again:
I think, I do/did have some symptoms, but I cannot exclude other reasons..
-High Load without high cpu-usage (io was the bottleneck)
-Just now: transfer from one directory to the other on the same
subvolume (from /mnt/subvol/A/B to /mnt/subvol/A) I get 1.2MB/s instead
of > 60.
-For
Am Sonntag, 12. Januar 2014, 23:31:43 schrieb Hendrik Friedel:
> > It mounts OK with no kernel messages?
>
> Yes. Here I mount the three subvolumes:
Does scrubbing the volume give any errors?
I´d test this. If scrubbing runs through without errors at least your data is
currently safe.
As to th
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 10:17:19 AM Chris Murphy wrote:
> -c 9 is max compression although I don't know what algorithm btrfs-image
> uses off hand. If I use xz on it, 193MB becomes 192MB.
Be interesting to generate the same image without compression in btrfs-image
and then xz it, in case it can do b
On Jan 14, 2014, at 2:30 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> I wonder if it compresses?
-c 9 is max compression although I don't know what algorithm btrfs-image uses
off hand. If I use xz on it, 193MB becomes 192MB.
Chris Murphy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsub
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 09:30:14AM +, Duncan wrote:
> Chris Murphy posted on Tue, 14 Jan 2014 00:49:13 -0700 as excerpted:
>
> > On Jan 13, 2014, at 11:03 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Chris Murphy posted on Mon, 13 Jan 2014 17:40:33 -0700 as excerpted:
> >>
> >>> btrfs-i
Chris Murphy posted on Tue, 14 Jan 2014 00:49:13 -0700 as excerpted:
> On Jan 13, 2014, at 11:03 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Chris Murphy posted on Mon, 13 Jan 2014 17:40:33 -0700 as excerpted:
>>
>>> btrfs-image -c 9-t 4 /dev/sdX /mnt/
>>>
>>> You can keep it handy in case a
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 05:40:33PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
> I see no obvious hardware source for the problem, SATA Phy Event Counters are
> zeros except a few COMRESET events which is pretty minor. No ICRC or UDMA-CRC
> errors recorded. No reallocated or pending bad sectors.
>
> I'd look at
On Jan 13, 2014, at 11:03 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Chris Murphy posted on Mon, 13 Jan 2014 17:40:33 -0700 as excerpted:
>
>> If you decide to backup, reformat, restore, then first I suggest
>>
>> btrfs-image -c 9-t 4 /dev/sdX /mnt/
>>
>> You can keep it handy in case a dev as
Chris Murphy posted on Mon, 13 Jan 2014 17:40:33 -0700 as excerpted:
> If you decide to backup, reformat, restore, then first I suggest
>
> btrfs-image -c 9-t 4 /dev/sdX /mnt/
>
> You can keep it handy in case a dev asks for it or you can attach it to
> a kernel.org bug report.
I've not actuall
I see no obvious hardware source for the problem, SATA Phy Event Counters are
zeros except a few COMRESET events which is pretty minor. No ICRC or UDMA-CRC
errors recorded. No reallocated or pending bad sectors.
I'd look at your historical system logs, messages or journalctl, and do case
insens
Hello,
Kernel version?
3.12.0-031200-generic
It mounts OK with no kernel messages?
Yes. Here I mount the three subvolumes:
dmesg:
[105152.392900] btrfs: device fsid 989306aa-d291-4752-8477-0baf94f8c42f
devid 1
transid 164942 /dev/sdb1
[105152.394332] btrfs: device
On Jan 10, 2014, at 4:53 PM, Hendrik Friedel wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I was wondering whether I am doing something wrong in the way I am
> asking/what I am asking.
> My understanding is, that btrfsck is not able to fix this error yet. So, I am
> surprised, that noone is interested in this, apparen
Hello,
I was wondering whether I am doing something wrong in the way I am
asking/what I am asking.
My understanding is, that btrfsck is not able to fix this error yet. So,
I am surprised, that noone is interested in this, apparently?
Regards,
Hendrik Friedel
Am 07.01.2014 21:38, schrieb Hend
Hello,
I ran btrfsck on my volume with the repair option. When I re-run
it, >>I get the same errors as before.
It mounts without errors? So why then btrfsck/btrfs repair? What precipitated
the repair?
I don't know what caused the damage, but a check revealed this:
Checking filesystem o
On Jan 4, 2014, at 2:21 PM, Hendrik Friedel wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
>
> >> I ran btrfsck on my volume with the repair option. When I re-run it, >>I
> >> get the same errors as before.
>>
>> Did you try mounting with -o recovery first?
>> https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Problem_FAQ
>
>
Hello,
What messages in dmesg so you get when you use recovery?
I'll find out, tomorrow (I can't access the disk just now).
Here it is:
[90098.989872] btrfs: device fsid 989306aa-d291-4752-8477-0baf94f8c42f
devid 2 transid 162460 /dev/sdc1
That's all. The same in the syslog.
Do you have
Hi Chris,
>> I ran btrfsck on my volume with the repair option. When I re-run it,
>>I get the same errors as before.
Did you try mounting with -o recovery first?
https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Problem_FAQ
No, I did not.
In fact, I had visited the FAQ before, and my understanding wa
On Jan 3, 2014, at 12:41 PM, Hendrik Friedel wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I ran btrfsck on my volume with the repair option. When I re-run it, I get
> the same errors as before.
Did you try mounting with -o recovery first?
https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Problem_FAQ
What messages in dmesg so
34 matches
Mail list logo
