On Mar 3, 2014, at 11:42 PM, Hendrik Friedel hend...@friedels.name 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
On Mar 2, 2014, at 11:39 AM, Hendrik Friedel hend...@friedels.name 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
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
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 Mon, 17 Feb 2014, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com 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
On Feb 18, 2014, at 2:55 PM, Hendrik Friedel hend...@friedels.name 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
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/or
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
On Feb 16, 2014, at 12:18 PM, Hendrik Friedel hend...@friedels.name 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
Chris Murphy posted on Sun, 16 Feb 2014 12:54:44 -0700 as excerpted:
On Feb 16, 2014, at 12:18 PM, Hendrik Friedel hend...@friedels.name
wrote:
[On balance converting to single from raidN:]
I think it didn't work.
btrfs balance start -dconvert=single -mconvert=single -sconvert=single
On Feb 9, 2014, at 1:36 AM, Hendrik Friedel hend...@friedels.name 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
On Feb 10, 2014, at 6:45 PM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
On Feb 9, 2014, at 1:36 AM, Hendrik Friedel hend...@friedels.name 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
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
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
On Feb 8, 2014, at 3:01 PM, Hendrik Friedel hend...@friedels.name 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
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
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
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 the
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
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 your
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/pathtoanothervolume+filename
You can keep it
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-image -c 9-t 4
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
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
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/pathtoanothervolume+filename
You can keep it handy in case a dev asks for it or you can attach it to
a kernel.org bug
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/pathtoanothervolume+filename
You can keep it handy
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:
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
On Jan 10, 2014, at 4:53 PM, Hendrik Friedel hend...@friedels.name 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
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 on
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
On Jan 4, 2014, at 2:21 PM, Hendrik Friedel hend...@friedels.name 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
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 was,
On Jan 3, 2014, at 12:41 PM, Hendrik Friedel hend...@friedels.name 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
34 matches
Mail list logo
