Hi,
I have a raid10 with 4x 3TB disks on a microserver
http://n40l.wikia.com/wiki/Base_Hardware_N54L , 8Gb RAM
Recently one disk started to fail (smart errors), so I replaced it
Mounted as degraded, added new disk, removed old
Started yesterday
I am monitoring /var/log/messages and it seems it
Am Sat, 19 Jul 2014 19:11:00 -0600
schrieb Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com:
I'm seeing this also in the 2nd dmesg:
[ 249.893310] BTRFS error (device sdg2): free space inode generation (0) did
not match free space cache generation (26286)
So you could try umounting the volume. And
Am Sat, 19 Jul 2014 18:53:03 -0600
schrieb Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com:
On Jul 19, 2014, at 2:58 PM, Marc Joliet mar...@gmx.de wrote:
Am Sat, 19 Jul 2014 22:10:51 +0200
schrieb Marc Joliet mar...@gmx.de:
[...]
Another random idea: the number of errors decreased the
Am Sun, 20 Jul 2014 02:39:27 + (UTC)
schrieb Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net:
Chris Murphy posted on Sat, 19 Jul 2014 11:38:08 -0600 as excerpted:
I'm not sure of the reason for the BTRFS info (device sdg2): 2 enospc
errors during balance but it seems informational rather than either a
Am Sun, 20 Jul 2014 12:22:33 +0200
schrieb Marc Joliet mar...@gmx.de:
[...]
I'll try this and see, but I think I have more files 1GB than would account
for this error (which comes towards the end of the balance when only a few
chunks are left). I'll see what find /mnt -type f -size +1G finds
Marc Joliet posted on Sun, 20 Jul 2014 12:22:33 +0200 as excerpted:
On the other hand, the wiki [0] says that defragmentation (and
balancing) is optional, and the only reason stated for doing either is
because they will have impact on performance.
Yes. That's what threw off the other guy as
Hi Linus,
We have two more fixes in my for-linus branch:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git for-linus
I was hoping to also include a fix for a btrfs deadlock with compression
enabled, but we're still nailing that one down.
Liu Bo (1) commits (+11/-0):
On 07/20/2014 10:00 AM, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 01:53:34PM +, Duncan wrote:
TM posted on Sun, 20 Jul 2014 08:45:51 + as excerpted:
One week for a raid10 rebuild 4x3TB drives is a very long time.
Any thoughts?
Can you share any statistics from your RAID10 rebuilds?
Thanks everyone for the responses. I'll start setting up my backup
strategy in 2 or 3 weeks. I'll give the diff and unionFS tips a go, and
report back on any progress.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On 20/07/2014 10:45, TM wrote:
Hi,
I have a raid10 with 4x 3TB disks on a microserver
http://n40l.wikia.com/wiki/Base_Hardware_N54L , 8Gb RAM
Recently one disk started to fail (smart errors), so I replaced it
Mounted as degraded, added new disk, removed old
Started yesterday
I am monitoring
On Sun, 20 Jul 2014 21:15:31 +0200
Bob Marley bobmar...@shiftmail.org wrote:
Hi TM, are you doing other significant filesystem activity during this
rebuild, especially random accesses?
This can reduce performances a lot on HDDs.
E.g. if you were doing strenous multithreaded random writes in
This is the cause for the slow reconstruct.
I believe the problem here might be that a Btrfs rebuild *is* a strenuous
random read (+ random-ish write) just by itself.
If you assume a 12ms average seek time (normal for 7200RPM SATA drives),
an 8.3ms rotational latency (half a rotation), an
[ deadlocks during rsync in 3.15 with compression enabled ]
Hi everyone,
I still haven't been able to reproduce this one here, but I'm going
through a series of tests with lzo compression foraced and every
operation forced to ordered. Hopefully it'll kick it out soon.
While I'm hammering away,
On 07/20/2014 02:28 PM, Bob Marley wrote:
On 20/07/2014 21:36, Roman Mamedov wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jul 2014 21:15:31 +0200
Bob Marley bobmar...@shiftmail.org wrote:
Hi TM, are you doing other significant filesystem activity during this
rebuild, especially random accesses?
This can reduce
Hi,
On 07/20/2014 04:45 PM, TM wrote:
Hi,
I have a raid10 with 4x 3TB disks on a microserver
http://n40l.wikia.com/wiki/Base_Hardware_N54L , 8Gb RAM
Recently one disk started to fail (smart errors), so I replaced it
Mounted as degraded, added new disk, removed old
Started yesterday
I am
Marc Joliet posted on Sun, 20 Jul 2014 21:44:40 +0200 as excerpted:
Am Sun, 20 Jul 2014 13:40:54 +0200 schrieb Marc Joliet mar...@gmx.de:
Am Sun, 20 Jul 2014 12:22:33 +0200 schrieb Marc Joliet mar...@gmx.de:
[...]
I'll try this and see, but I think I have more files 1GB than would
ashford posted on Sun, 20 Jul 2014 12:59:21 -0700 as excerpted:
If you assume a 12ms average seek time (normal for 7200RPM SATA drives),
an 8.3ms rotational latency (half a rotation), an average 64kb write and
a 100MB/S streaming write speed, each write comes in at ~21ms, which
gives us ~47
17 matches
Mail list logo
