Re: out-of-band dedup status?

On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > [adding mark fasheh (duperemove maintainer) to cc] > > On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 07:29:21AM -0500, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: >> On 2016-12-08 21:54, Chris Murphy wrote: >> >On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 7:26 PM, Darrick

Re: out-of-band dedup status?

[adding mark fasheh (duperemove maintainer) to cc] On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 07:29:21AM -0500, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > On 2016-12-08 21:54, Chris Murphy wrote: > >On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 7:26 PM, Darrick J. Wong > >wrote: > >>On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 05:45:40PM -0700,

Re: out-of-band dedup status?

On 2016-12-08 21:54, Chris Murphy wrote: On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 7:26 PM, Darrick J. Wong wrote: On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 05:45:40PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: OK something's wrong. Kernel 4.8.12 and duperemove v0.11.beta4. Brand new file system (mkfs.btrfs -dsingle

Re: out-of-band dedup status?

On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 03:15:38PM -0500, Jeff Mahoney wrote: > On 12/8/16 1:36 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > > I just wondered whether out-of-band/"offline" dedup is safe for general > > use... https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Status kinda implies so > > (it tells about unspecified

Re: out-of-band dedup status?

On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 07:54:39PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 7:26 PM, Darrick J. Wong > wrote: > > Ew, it's deduping these two 1.4GB files 128K at a time, which results in > > 12000 ioctl calls. Each of those 12000 calls has to lock the two > >

Re: out-of-band dedup status?

On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 7:26 PM, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 05:45:40PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: >> OK something's wrong. >> >> Kernel 4.8.12 and duperemove v0.11.beta4. Brand new file system >> (mkfs.btrfs -dsingle -msingle, default mount options)

Re: out-of-band dedup status?

On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 05:45:40PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: > OK something's wrong. > > Kernel 4.8.12 and duperemove v0.11.beta4. Brand new file system > (mkfs.btrfs -dsingle -msingle, default mount options) and two > identical files separately copied. > > [chris@f25s]$ ls -li /mnt/test >

Re: out-of-band dedup status?

OK something's wrong. Kernel 4.8.12 and duperemove v0.11.beta4. Brand new file system (mkfs.btrfs -dsingle -msingle, default mount options) and two identical files separately copied. [chris@f25s]$ ls -li /mnt/test total 2811904 260 -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 1439694848 Dec 8 17:26

Re: out-of-band dedup status?

On Thursday 08 December 2016 13:41:36 Chris Murphy wrote: > Pretty sure it will not dedupe extents that are referenced in a read > only subvolume. I've used duperemove to de-duplicate files in read-only snapshots (of different systems) on my backup drive, so unless you're referencing some

Re: out-of-band dedup status?

On Thu, 2016-12-08 at 13:41 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: > Pretty sure it will not dedupe extents that are referenced in a read > only subvolume. Oh... hm.. well that would be quite some limitation, cause as soon as one has a snapshot of the full fs (which is probably not so unlikely) i won't work

Re: out-of-band dedup status?

Pretty sure it will not dedupe extents that are referenced in a read only subvolume. Chris Murphy -- 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 http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: out-of-band dedup status?

On 12/8/16 1:36 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > Hey. > > I just wondered whether out-of-band/"offline" dedup is safe for general > use... https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Status kinda implies so > (it tells about unspecified performance issues), but this seems again > already

out-of-band dedup status?

Hey. I just wondered whether out-of-band/"offline" dedup is safe for general use... https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Status kinda implies so (it tells about unspecified performance issues), but this seems again already outdated (kernel 4.7)... :-( My intention was to use it with