Re: btrfs_remove_chunk call trace?

...and can it be related to the Samsung 840 SSD's not supporting NCQ Trim? (Although I can't tell which device this trace is from -- it could be a mechanical Western Digital.) On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 10:16 PM, Rich Rauenzahn wrote: > Is this something to be concerned about?

[PATCH] btrfs-progs: Output time elapsed for each major tree it checked

Marc reported that "btrfs check --repair" runs much faster than "btrfs check", which is quite weird. This patch will add time elapsed for each major tree it checked, for both original mode and lowmem mode, so we can have a clue what's going wrong. Reported-by: Marc MERLIN

Re: Regarding handling of file renames in Btrfs

On 2017年09月10日 22:34, Martin Raiber wrote: Hi, On 10.09.2017 08:45 Qu Wenruo wrote: On 2017年09月10日 14:41, Qu Wenruo wrote: On 2017年09月10日 07:50, Rohan Kadekodi wrote: Hello, I was trying to understand how file renames are handled in Btrfs. I read the code documentation, but had a

[PATCH] btrfs-progs: update btrfs-completion

This patch updates btrfs-completion: - add "filesystem du" and "rescure zero-log" - restrict _btrfs_mnts to show btrfs type only - add more completion in last case statements (This file contains both spaces/tabs and may need cleanup.) Signed-off-by: Tomohiro Misono

Re: Please help with exact actions for raid1 hot-swap

It doesn't need replaced disk to be readable, right? Then what prevents same procedure to work without a spare bay? -- With Best Regards, Marat Khalili On September 9, 2017 1:29:08 PM GMT+03:00, Patrik Lundquist wrote: >On 9 September 2017 at 12:05, Marat Khalili

Re: Regarding handling of file renames in Btrfs

On 2017年09月10日 14:41, Qu Wenruo wrote: On 2017年09月10日 07:50, Rohan Kadekodi wrote: Hello, I was trying to understand how file renames are handled in Btrfs. I read the code documentation, but had a problem understanding a few things. During a file rename, btrfs_commit_transaction() is

Re: btrfs check --repair now runs in minutes instead of hours? aborting

On 2017年09月10日 01:44, Marc MERLIN wrote: So, should I assume that btrfs progs git has some issue since there is no plausible way that a check --repair should be faster than a regular check? Yes, the assumption that repair should be no faster than RO check is correct. Especially for clean

Re: Regarding handling of file renames in Btrfs

On 2017年09月10日 07:50, Rohan Kadekodi wrote: Hello, I was trying to understand how file renames are handled in Btrfs. I read the code documentation, but had a problem understanding a few things. During a file rename, btrfs_commit_transaction() is called which is because Btrfs has to commit

Re: netapp-alike snapshots?

Perhaps netapp is using a VFS overlay. There is really only one snapshot but it is shown in the overlay on every folder. Kind of the same with samba Shadow Copies. From: Ulli Horlacher -- Sent: 2017-09-09 - 21:52 > On Sat 2017-09-09 (22:43), Andrei

btrfs_remove_chunk call trace?

Is this something to be concerned about? I'm running the latest mainline kernel on CentOS 7. [ 1338.882288] [ cut here ] [ 1338.883058] WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 790 at fs/btrfs/ctree.h:1559 btrfs_update_device+0x1c5/0x1d0 [btrfs] [ 1338.883809] Modules linked in: xt_nat veth

Re: Help me understand what is going on with my RAID1 FS

>Actually based on http://carfax.org.uk/btrfs-usage/index.html I >would've expected 6 TB of usable space. Here I get 6.4 which is odd, >but that only 1.5 TB is available is even stranger. > >Could anyone explain what I did wrong or why my expectations are wrong? > >Thank you in advance I'd say df

Re: Help me understand what is going on with my RAID1 FS

@Kai and Dmitrii thank you for your explanations if I understand you correctly, you're saying that btrfs makes no attempt to "optimally" use the physical devices it has in the FS, once a new RAID1 block group needs to be allocated it will semi-randomly pick two devices with enough space and

Re: Help me understand what is going on with my RAID1 FS

>Problem is that each raid1 block group contains two chunks on two >separate devices, it can't utilize fully three devices no matter what. >If that doesn't suit you then you need to add 4th disk. After >that FS will be able to use all unallocated space on all disks in raid1 >profile. But even then

Re: Help me understand what is going on with my RAID1 FS

> @Kai and Dmitrii > thank you for your explanations if I understand you correctly, you're > saying that btrfs makes no attempt to "optimally" use the physical > devices it has in the FS, once a new RAID1 block group needs to be > allocated it will semi-randomly pick two devices with enough space

Re: Regarding handling of file renames in Btrfs

Hi, On 10.09.2017 08:45 Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > On 2017年09月10日 14:41, Qu Wenruo wrote: >> >> >> On 2017年09月10日 07:50, Rohan Kadekodi wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> I was trying to understand how file renames are handled in Btrfs. I >>> read the code documentation, but had a problem understanding a few

Re: Regarding handling of file renames in Btrfs

Thank you for the prompt and elaborate answers! However, I think I was unclear in my questions, and I apologize for the confusion. What I meant was that for a file rename, when I check the blktrace output, there are 2 writes of 256KB each starting from byte number: 13373440 When I check

Re: netapp-alike snapshots?

On Sat, Sep 09, 2017 at 10:43:16PM +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: > 09.09.2017 16:44, Ulli Horlacher пишет: > > > > Your tool does not create .snapshot subdirectories in EVERY directory like > > Neither does NetApp. Those "directories" are magic handles that do not > really exist. Correct,

Re: Help me understand what is going on with my RAID1 FS

Am Sun, 10 Sep 2017 15:45:42 +0200 schrieb FLJ : > Hello all, > > I have a BTRFS RAID1 volume running for the past year. I avoided all > pitfalls known to me that would mess up this volume. I never > experimented with quotas, no-COW, snapshots, defrag, nothing really. > The

Help me understand what is going on with my RAID1 FS

Hello all, I have a BTRFS RAID1 volume running for the past year. I avoided all pitfalls known to me that would mess up this volume. I never experimented with quotas, no-COW, snapshots, defrag, nothing really. The volume is a RAID1 from day 1 and is working reliably until now. Until yesterday it

Re: generic name for volume and subvolume root?

> As I am writing some documentation abount creating snapshots: > Is there a generic name for both volume and subvolume root? Yes, it is from the UNIX side 'root directory' and from the Btrfs side 'subvolume'. Like some other things Btrfs, its terminology is often inconsistent, but "volume"

[PATCH] btrfs: tests: Fix a memory leak in error handling path in 'run_test()'

If 'btrfs_alloc_path()' fails, we must free the resourses already allocated, as done in the other error handling paths in this function. Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET --- fs/btrfs/tests/free-space-tree-tests.c | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1

Re: btrfs check --repair now runs in minutes instead of hours? aborting

On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 02:01:58PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > On 2017年09月10日 01:44, Marc MERLIN wrote: > > So, should I assume that btrfs progs git has some issue since there is > > no plausible way that a check --repair should be faster than a regular > > check? > > Yes, the assumption that

Re: BTRFS: error (device dm-2) in btrfs_run_delayed_refs:2960: errno=-17 Object already exists (since 3.4 / 2012)

Great, if the free space cache is fucked again after the next go around then I need to expand the verifier to watch entries being added to the cache as well. Thanks, Josef Sent from my iPhone > On Sep 10, 2017, at 9:14 AM, Marc MERLIN wrote: > >> On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at

Re: Please help with exact actions for raid1 hot-swap

On 10 September 2017 at 08:33, Marat Khalili wrote: > It doesn't need replaced disk to be readable, right? Only enough to be mountable, which it already is, so your read errors on /dev/sdb isn't a problem. > Then what prevents same procedure to work without a spare bay? It is

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: tests: Fix a memory leak in error handling path in 'run_test()'

On 2017年09月10日 19:19, Christophe JAILLET wrote: If 'btrfs_alloc_path()' fails, we must free the resourses already allocated, as done in the other error handling paths in this function. Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET Reviewed-by: Qu Wenruo

Re: BTRFS: error (device dm-2) in btrfs_run_delayed_refs:2960: errno=-17 Object already exists (since 3.4 / 2012)

On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 03:12:16AM +, Josef Bacik wrote: > Ok mount -o clear_cache, umount and run fsck again just to make sure. Then > if it comes out clean mount with ref_verify again and wait for it to blow up > again. Thanks, Ok, just did the 2nd fsck, came back clean after mount -o

Re: Help me understand what is going on with my RAID1 FS

10.09.2017 18:47, Kai Krakow пишет: > Am Sun, 10 Sep 2017 15:45:42 +0200 > schrieb FLJ : > >> Hello all, >> >> I have a BTRFS RAID1 volume running for the past year. I avoided all >> pitfalls known to me that would mess up this volume. I never >> experimented with quotas,

Re: Help me understand what is going on with my RAID1 FS

> > Drive1 Drive2Drive3 > > X X > > X X > > X X > > > > Where X is a chunk of raid1 block group. > > But this table clearly shows that adding third drive increases free > space by 50%. You need to reallocate data to actually

Re: Help me understand what is going on with my RAID1 FS

10.09.2017 19:11, Dmitrii Tcvetkov пишет: >> Actually based on http://carfax.org.uk/btrfs-usage/index.html I >> would've expected 6 TB of usable space. Here I get 6.4 which is odd, >> but that only 1.5 TB is available is even stranger. >> >> Could anyone explain what I did wrong or why my

Re: Regarding handling of file renames in Btrfs

On 2017年09月10日 22:32, Rohan Kadekodi wrote: Thank you for the prompt and elaborate answers! However, I think I was unclear in my questions, and I apologize for the confusion. What I meant was that for a file rename, when I check the blktrace output, there are 2 writes of 256KB each starting

Re: BTRFS: error (device dm-2) in btrfs_run_delayed_refs:2960: errno=-17 Object already exists (since 3.4 / 2012)

On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 01:16:26PM +, Josef Bacik wrote: > Great, if the free space cache is fucked again after the next go > around then I need to expand the verifier to watch entries being added > to the cache as well. Thanks, Well, I copied about 1TB of data, and nothing happened. So it

Re: Help me understand what is going on with my RAID1 FS

Am Sun, 10 Sep 2017 20:15:52 +0200 schrieb Ferenc-Levente Juhos : > >Problem is that each raid1 block group contains two chunks on two > >separate devices, it can't utilize fully three devices no matter > >what. If that doesn't suit you then you need to add 4th disk. After >

Re: Help me understand what is going on with my RAID1 FS

FLJ posted on Sun, 10 Sep 2017 15:45:42 +0200 as excerpted: > I have a BTRFS RAID1 volume running for the past year. I avoided all > pitfalls known to me that would mess up this volume. I never > experimented with quotas, no-COW, snapshots, defrag, nothing really. > The volume is a RAID1 from day

Re: Help me understand what is going on with my RAID1 FS

10.09.2017 23:17, Dmitrii Tcvetkov пишет: >>> Drive1 Drive2Drive3 >>> X X >>> X X >>> X X >>> >>> Where X is a chunk of raid1 block group. >> >> But this table clearly shows that adding third drive increases free >> space by 50%.