Re: systemd KillUserProcesses=yes and btrfs scrub

On 2016-08-01 13:15, Chris Murphy wrote: On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: On 2016-08-01 12:19, Chris Murphy wrote: On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: MD and DM RAID handle this

Re: Any suggestions for thousands of disk image snapshots ?

On 2016-07-26 10:42, Chris Murphy wrote: On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 3:37 AM, Kurt Seo wrote: 2016-07-26 5:49 GMT+09:00 Chris Murphy : On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 1:25 AM, Kurt Seo wrote: Hi all I am currently

Re: [PATCH] btrfs-progs: add option to run balance as daemon

On 2016-07-26 13:07, David Sterba wrote: On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:44:30AM +0900, Satoru Takeuchi wrote: + chdir("/"); You should check the return value of chdir(). Otherwise we get the following warning message at the build time. Can we actually fail

Re: checksum error in metadata node - best way to move root fs to new drive?

ly seen one of those in at least a few months. In general, BTRFS is moving fast enough that reports older than a kernel release cycle are generally out of date unless something confirms otherwise, but I do distinctly recall such issues being commonly reported in the past. On 10 August 2016 at 15:46,

Re: system locked up with btrfs-transaction consuming 100% CPU

On 2016-08-09 18:20, Dave T wrote: Thank you for the info, Duncan. I will use Alt-sysrq-s alt-sysrq-u alt-sysrq-b. This is the best description / recommendation I've read on the subject. I had read about these special key sequences before but I could never remember them and I didn't fully

Re: checksum error in metadata node - best way to move root fs to new drive?

On 2016-08-10 02:27, Duncan wrote: Dave T posted on Tue, 09 Aug 2016 23:27:56 -0400 as excerpted: btrfs scrub returned with uncorrectable errors. Searching in dmesg returns the following information: BTRFS warning (device dm-0): checksum error at logical N on /dev/mapper/[crypto] sector:

Re: Extents for a particular subvolume

On 2016-08-03 17:55, Graham Cobb wrote: On 03/08/16 21:37, Adam Borowski wrote: On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 08:56:01PM +0100, Graham Cobb wrote: Are there any btrfs commands (or APIs) to allow a script to create a list of all the extents referred to within a particular (mounted) subvolume? And is

Re: checksum error in metadata node - best way to move root fs to new drive?

On 2016-08-12 11:06, Duncan wrote: Austin S. Hemmelgarn posted on Fri, 12 Aug 2016 08:04:42 -0400 as excerpted: On a file server? No, I'd ensure proper physical security is established and make sure it's properly secured against network based attacks and then not worry about it. Unless you

Re: About minimal device number for RAID5/6

On 2016-08-15 03:50, Qu Wenruo wrote: Hi, Recently I found that manpage of mkfs is saying minimal device number for RAID5 and RAID6 is 2 and 3. Personally speaking, although I understand that RAID5/6 only requires 1/2 devices for parity stripe, it is still quite strange behavior. Under most

Re: checksum error in metadata node - best way to move root fs to new drive?

On 2016-08-11 16:23, Dave T wrote: What I have gathered so far is the following: 1. my RAM is not faulty and I feel comfortable ruling out a memory error as having anything to do with the reported problem. 2. my storage device does not seem to be faulty. I have not figured out how to do more

Re: Status of SMR with BTRFS

On 2016-07-21 09:34, Chris Murphy wrote: On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 6:46 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: On 2016-07-20 15:58, Chris Murphy wrote: On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 3:08 AM, Hendrik Friedel <hend...@friedels.name> wrote: Well, btrfs does write data ve

Re: Status of SMR with BTRFS

On 2016-07-20 15:58, Chris Murphy wrote: On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 3:08 AM, Hendrik Friedel wrote: Well, btrfs does write data very different to many other file systems. On every write the file is copied to another place, even if just one bit is changed. That's special

Re: Data recovery from a linear multi-disk btrfs file system

On 2016-07-15 05:51, Matt wrote: Hello I glued together 6 disks in linear lvm fashion (no RAID) to obtain one large file system (see below). One of the 6 disk failed. What is the best way to recover from this? Thanks to RAID1 of the metadata I can still access the data residing on the

Re: Status of SMR with BTRFS

On 2016-07-18 14:31, Hendrik Friedel wrote: Hello and thanks for your replies, It's a Seagate Expansion Desktop 5TB (USB3). It is probably a ST5000DM000. this is TGMR not SMR disk: TGMR is a derivative of giant magneto-resistance, and is what's been used in hard disk drives for decades now.

Re: Status of SMR with BTRFS

On 2016-07-18 15:05, Hendrik Friedel wrote: Hello Austin, thanks for your reply. Ok, thanks; So, TGMR does not say whether or not the Device is SMR or not, right? I'm not 100% certain about that. Technically, the only non-firmware difference is in the read head and the tracking. If it were

Re: Data recovery from a linear multi-disk btrfs file system

On 2016-07-15 14:45, Matt wrote: On 15 Jul 2016, at 14:10, Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: On 2016-07-15 05:51, Matt wrote: Hello I glued together 6 disks in linear lvm fashion (no RAID) to obtain one large file system (see below). One of the 6 disk failed

Re: [PATCH] btrfs-progs: add option to run balance as daemon

On 2016-07-11 12:58, Tomasz Torcz wrote: On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 07:17:28AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2016-07-11 03:26, Tomasz Torcz wrote: On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 11:16:59AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: Currently, balance operations are run synchronously in the foreground

Re: [PATCH] btrfs-progs: add option to run balance as daemon

On 2016-07-12 11:22, Duncan wrote: Austin S. Hemmelgarn posted on Tue, 12 Jul 2016 08:25:24 -0400 as excerpted: As far as daemonization, I have no man-page called daemon in section seven, yet I have an up-to-date upstream copy of the Linux man pages. My guess is that this is a systemd man page

Re: 64-btrfs.rules and degraded boot

On 2016-07-11 17:07, Chris Murphy wrote: On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 6:24 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: To clarify, I'm not trying to argue against adding support, I'm arguing against it being mandatory. By "D-Bus support" I did not mean to indicate ma

Re: [PATCH] btrfs-progs: add option to run balance as daemon

On 2016-07-13 00:39, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: 12.07.2016 15:25, Austin S. Hemmelgarn пишет: I'm not changing my init system just to add functionality that should already exist in btrfs-progs. The fact that the balance ioctl is synchronous was a poor design choice, and we need to provide

Re: Status of SMR with BTRFS

On 2016-07-17 05:08, Hendrik Friedel wrote: Hi Thomasz, @Dave I have added you to the conversation, as I refer to your notes (https://github.com/kdave/drafts/blob/master/btrfs/smr-mode.txt) thanks for your reply! It's a Seagate Expansion Desktop 5TB (USB3). It is probably a ST5000DM000.

Re: Adventures in btrfs raid5 disk recovery

On 2016-06-25 12:44, Chris Murphy wrote: On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: Well, the obvious major advantage that comes to mind for me to checksumming parity is that it would let us scrub the parity data itself and verify it. OK bu

Re: 64-btrfs.rules and degraded boot

On 2016-07-06 05:51, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 11:10 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: I started a systemd-devel@ thread since that's where most udev stuff gets talked about. https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2016-July/037031.html

Re: [Bug-tar] stat() on btrfs reports the st_blocks with delay (data loss in archivers)

On 2016-07-05 05:28, Joerg Schilling wrote: Andreas Dilger wrote: I think in addition to fixing btrfs (because it needs to work with existing tar/rsync/etc. tools) it makes sense to *also* fix the heuristics of tar to handle this situation more robustly. One option is if

Re: Adventures in btrfs raid5 disk recovery

On 2016-07-05 19:05, Chris Murphy wrote: Related: http://www.spinics.net/lists/raid/msg52880.html Looks like there is some traction to figuring out what to do about this, whether it's a udev rule or something that happens in the kernel itself. Pretty much the only hardware setup unaffected by

Re: 64-btrfs.rules and degraded boot

On 2016-07-06 07:55, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 2:45 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: On 2016-07-06 05:51, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 11:10 PM, Chris Murphy <li...@colorremedies.com> wrote: I started a systemd-devel@

Re: 64-btrfs.rules and degraded boot

On 2016-07-06 08:39, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: Отправлено с iPhone 6 июля 2016 г., в 15:14, Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> написал(а): On 2016-07-06 07:55, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 2:45 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: O

Re: Frequent btrfs corruption on a USB flash drive

On 2016-07-07 09:49, Francesco Turco wrote: I have a USB flash drive with an encrypted Btrfs filesystem where I store daily backups. My problem is that this btrfs filesystem gets corrupted very often, after a few days of usage. Usually I just reformat it and move along, but this time I'd like to

Re: Frequent btrfs corruption on a USB flash drive

On 2016-07-07 10:55, Francesco Turco wrote: On 2016-07-07 16:27, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: This seems odd, are you trying to access anything over NFS or some other network filesystem protocol here? If not, then I believe you've found a bug, because I'm pretty certain we shouldn't

Re: 64-btrfs.rules and degraded boot

On 2016-07-07 12:52, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: On 2016-07-06 14:48, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2016-07-06 08:39, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: [] To be entirely honest, if it were me, I'd want systemd to fsck off. If the kernel mount(2) call succeeds, then the filesystem was ready enough

Re: raid1 has failing disks, but smart is clear

On 2016-07-08 07:14, Tomasz Kusmierz wrote: Well, I was able to run memtest on the system last night, that passed with flying colors, so I'm now leaning toward the problem being in the sas card. But I'll have to run some more tests. Seriously use the "stres.sh" for couple of days, When I was

Re: 64-btrfs.rules and degraded boot

On 2016-07-07 16:20, Chris Murphy wrote: On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: D-Bus support needs to be optional, period. Not everybody uses D-Bus (I have dozens of systems that get by just fine without it, and know hundreds of other people

Re: Frequent btrfs corruption on a USB flash drive

On 2016-07-08 12:10, Francesco Turco wrote: On 2016-07-07 19:57, Chris Murphy wrote: Use F3 to test flash: http://oss.digirati.com.br/f3/ I tested my USB flash drive with F3 as you suggested, and there's no indication it is a fake device. --- # f3probe --destructive /dev/sdb F3

Re: 64-btrfs.rules and degraded boot

On 2016-07-06 14:23, Chris Murphy wrote: On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: On 2016-07-06 13:19, Chris Murphy wrote: On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 3:51 AM, Andrei Borzenkov <arvidj...@gmail.com> wrote: 3) can we query btrfs whether it

Re: [Bug-tar] stat() on btrfs reports the st_blocks with delay (data loss in archivers)

On 2016-07-06 11:22, Joerg Schilling wrote: "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: It should be obvious that a file that offers content also has allocated blocks. What you mean then is that POSIX _implies_ that this is the case, but does not say whether or no

Re: 64-btrfs.rules and degraded boot

On 2016-07-06 13:19, Chris Murphy wrote: On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 3:51 AM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: 3) can we query btrfs whether it is mountable in degraded mode? according to documentation, "btrfs device ready" (which udev builtin follows) checks "if it has ALL of it’s

Re: Adventures in btrfs raid5 disk recovery

On 2016-07-06 14:45, Chris Murphy wrote: On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: On 2016-07-06 12:43, Chris Murphy wrote: So does it make sense to just set the default to 180? Or is there a smarter way to do this? I don't know. Just th

Re: [Bug-tar] stat() on btrfs reports the st_blocks with delay (data loss in archivers)

On 2016-07-06 12:05, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2016-07-06 11:22, Joerg Schilling wrote: "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: It should be obvious that a file that offers content also has allocated blocks. What you mean then is that POSIX _implies_ that

Re: [Bug-tar] stat() on btrfs reports the st_blocks with delay (data loss in archivers)

On 2016-07-06 10:53, Joerg Schilling wrote: Antonio Diaz Diaz wrote: Joerg Schilling wrote: POSIX requires st_blocks to be != 0 in case that the file contains data. Please, could you provide a reference? I can't find such requirement at

Re: Adventures in btrfs raid5 disk recovery

On 2016-07-06 12:43, Chris Murphy wrote: On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 5:51 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: On 2016-07-05 19:05, Chris Murphy wrote: Related: http://www.spinics.net/lists/raid/msg52880.html Looks like there is some traction to figuring out what to do

Re: raid1 has failing disks, but smart is clear

On 2016-07-06 18:59, Tomasz Kusmierz wrote: On 6 Jul 2016, at 23:14, Corey Coughlin wrote: Hi all, Hoping you all can help, have a strange problem, think I know what's going on, but could use some verification. I set up a raid1 type btrfs filesystem on an

Re: [PATCH] btrfs-progs: add option to run balance as daemon

On 2016-07-11 03:26, Tomasz Torcz wrote: On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 11:16:59AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: Currently, balance operations are run synchronously in the foreground. This is nice for interactive management, but is kind of crappy when you start looking at automation and similar

Re: 64-btrfs.rules and degraded boot

On 2016-07-07 14:58, Chris Murphy wrote: On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: Here's how I would picture the ideal situation: * A device is processed by udev. It detects that it's part of a BTRFS array, updates blkid and whateve

Re: How to stress test raid6 on 122 disk array

On 2016-08-04 17:12, Chris Murphy wrote: On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Martin wrote: Thanks for the benchmark tools and tips on where the issues might be. Is Fedora 24 rawhide preferred over ArchLinux? I'm not sure what Arch does any differently to their kernels

Re: 6TB partition, Data only 2TB - aka When you haven't hit the "usual" problem

On 2016-08-05 06:56, Lutz Vieweg wrote: On 08/04/2016 10:30 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: Keep in mind the list is rather self-selecting for problems. People who aren't having problems are unlikely to post their non-problems to the list. True, but the number of people inclined to post a bug report

Re: How to stress test raid6 on 122 disk array

On 2016-08-04 13:43, Martin wrote: Hi, I would like to find rare raid6 bugs in btrfs, where I have the following hw: * 2x 8 core CPU * 128GB ram * 70 FC disk array (56x 500GB + 14x 1TB SATA disks) * 24 FC or 2x SAS disk array (1TB SAS disks) * 16 FC disk array (1TB SATA disks) * 12 SAS disk

Re: "No space left on device" and balance doesn't work

On 2016-08-09 05:50, MegaBrutal wrote: 2016-06-03 14:43 GMT+02:00 Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com>: Also, since you're on a new enough kernel, try 'lazytime' in the mount options as well, this defers all on-disk timestamp updates for up to 24 hours or until the inode gets w

Re: Issue: errno:28 (No space left on device)

On 2016-08-09 07:50, Thomas wrote: Hello! First things first: Mailing lists are asynchronous. You will almost _never_ get an immediate response, and will quite often not get a response for a few hours at least. Sending a message more than once when you don't get a response does not make it

Re: Kernel bug during RAID1 replace

On 2016-06-29 14:12, Saint Germain wrote: On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 11:28:24 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote : Already got a backup. I just really want to try to repair it (in order to test BTRFS). I don't know that this is a good test because I think the file system has

Re: Adventures in btrfs raid5 disk recovery

On 2016-06-28 08:14, Steven Haigh wrote: On 28/06/16 22:05, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2016-06-27 17:57, Zygo Blaxell wrote: On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:17:04AM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 5:21 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: On 2016-06

Re: How to stress test raid6 on 122 disk array

On 2016-08-15 08:19, Martin wrote: The smallest disk of the 122 is 500GB. Is it possible to have btrfs see each disk as only e.g. 10GB? That way I can corrupt and resilver more disks over a month. Well, at least you can easily partition the devices for that to happen. Can it be done with

Re: How to stress test raid6 on 122 disk array

On 2016-08-15 09:39, Martin wrote: That really is the case, there's currently no way to do this with BTRFS. You have to keep in mind that the raid5/6 code only went into the mainline kernel a few versions ago, and it's still pretty immature as far as kernel code goes. I don't know when (if

Re: Huge load on btrfs subvolume delete

On 2016-08-15 10:06, Daniel Caillibaud wrote: Le 15/08/16 à 08:32, "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" <ahferro...@gmail.com> a écrit : ASH> On 2016-08-15 06:39, Daniel Caillibaud wrote: ASH> > I'm newbie with btrfs, and I have pb with high load after each btrfs subvolume delete

Re: How to stress test raid6 on 122 disk array

On 2016-08-15 09:38, Martin wrote: Looking at the kernel log itself, you've got a ton of write errors on /dev/sdap. I would suggest checking that particular disk with smartctl, and possibly checking the other hardware involved (the storage controller and cabling). I would kind of expect BTRFS

Re: Huge load on btrfs subvolume delete

On 2016-08-15 06:39, Daniel Caillibaud wrote: Hi, I'm newbie with btrfs, and I have pb with high load after each btrfs subvolume delete I use snapshots on lxc hosts under debian jessie with - kernel 4.6.0-0.bpo.1-amd64 - btrfs-progs 4.6.1-1~bpo8 For backup, I have each day, for each

Re: How to stress test raid6 on 122 disk array

On 2016-08-15 08:19, Martin wrote: I'm not sure what Arch does any differently to their kernels from kernel.org kernels. But bugzilla.kernel.org offers a Mainline and Fedora drop down for identifying the kernel source tree. IIRC, they're pretty close to mainline kernels. I don't think they

Re: About minimal device number for RAID5/6

On 2016-08-15 10:08, Anand Jain wrote: IMHO it's better to warn user about 2 devices RAID5 or 3 devices RAID6. Any comment is welcomed. Based on looking at the code, we do in fact support 2/3 devices for raid5/6 respectively. Personally, I agree that we should warn when trying to do this,

Re: About minimal device number for RAID5/6

On 2016-08-15 10:32, Anand Jain wrote: On 08/15/2016 10:10 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2016-08-15 10:08, Anand Jain wrote: IMHO it's better to warn user about 2 devices RAID5 or 3 devices RAID6. Any comment is welcomed. Based on looking at the code, we do in fact support 2/3

[PATCH v2] btrfs-progs: better document btrfs receive security

of the send stream. Signed-off-by: Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> Suggested-by: Graham Cobb <g.bt...@cobb.uk.net> --- Chages since v1: * Updated the description based on suggestions from Graham Cobb. Inspired by a recent thread on the ML. This could probably be m

Re: btrfs receive leaves new subvolume modifiable during operation

On 2017-02-03 14:17, Graham Cobb wrote: On 03/02/17 16:01, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: Ironically, I ended up having time sooner than I thought. The message doesn't appear to be in any of the archives yet, but the message ID is: <20170203134858.75210-1-ahferro...@gmail.com> Ah. I

Re: btrfs recovery

On 2017-01-30 23:58, Duncan wrote: Oliver Freyermuth posted on Sat, 28 Jan 2017 17:46:24 +0100 as excerpted: Just don't count on restore to save your *** and always treat what it can often bring to current as a pleasant surprise, and having it fail won't be a down side, while having it work,

Re: btrfs receive leaves new subvolume modifiable during operation

On 2017-02-01 00:09, Duncan wrote: Christian Lupien posted on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 18:32:58 -0500 as excerpted: I have been testing btrfs send/receive. I like it. During those tests I discovered that it is possible to access and modify (add files, delete files ...) of the new receive snapshot

Re: Very slow balance / btrfs-transaction

On 2017-02-04 16:10, Kai Krakow wrote: Am Sat, 04 Feb 2017 20:50:03 + schrieb "Jorg Bornschein" : February 4, 2017 1:07 AM, "Goldwyn Rodrigues" wrote: Yes, please check if disabling quotas makes a difference in execution time of btrfs balance. Just

Re: Is it possible to have metadata-only device with no data?

On 2017-02-05 23:26, Duncan wrote: Hans van Kranenburg posted on Sun, 05 Feb 2017 22:55:42 +0100 as excerpted: On 02/05/2017 10:42 PM, Alexander Tomokhov wrote: Is it possible, having two drives to do raid1 for metadata but keep data on a single drive only? Nope. Would be a really nice

Re: btrfs receive leaves new subvolume modifiable during operation

On 2017-02-05 06:54, Kai Krakow wrote: Am Wed, 1 Feb 2017 17:43:32 + schrieb Graham Cobb <g.bt...@cobb.uk.net>: On 01/02/17 12:28, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2017-02-01 00:09, Duncan wrote: Christian Lupien posted on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 18:32:58 -0500 as excerpted: [...] I'

Re: BTRFS for OLTP Databases

On 2017-02-07 08:53, Peter Zaitsev wrote: Hi, I have tried BTRFS from Ubuntu 16.04 LTS for write intensive OLTP MySQL Workload. It did not go very well ranging from multi-seconds stalls where no transactions are completed to the finally kernel OOPS with "no space left on device" error

Re: BTRFS for OLTP Databases

On 2017-02-07 10:00, Timofey Titovets wrote: 2017-02-07 17:13 GMT+03:00 Peter Zaitsev : Hi Hugo, For the use case I'm looking for I'm interested in having snapshot(s) open at all time. Imagine for example snapshot being created every hour and several of these snapshots

Re: BTRFS for OLTP Databases

On 2017-02-07 10:20, Timofey Titovets wrote: I think that you have a problem with extent bookkeeping (if i understand how btrfs manage extents). So for deal with it, try enable compression, as compression will force all extents to be fragmented with size ~128kb. No, it will compress everything

Re: BTRFS for OLTP Databases

On 2017-02-07 13:59, Peter Zaitsev wrote: Jeff, Thank you very much for explanations. Indeed it was not clear in the documentation - I read it simply as "if you have snapshots enabled nodatacow makes no difference" I will rebuild the database in this mode from scratch and see how performance

Re: BTRFS for OLTP Databases

On 2017-02-07 15:36, Kai Krakow wrote: Am Tue, 7 Feb 2017 09:13:25 -0500 schrieb Peter Zaitsev : Hi Hugo, For the use case I'm looking for I'm interested in having snapshot(s) open at all time. Imagine for example snapshot being created every hour and several of these

Re: BTRFS for OLTP Databases

On 2017-02-07 14:39, Kai Krakow wrote: Am Tue, 7 Feb 2017 10:06:34 -0500 schrieb "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" <ahferro...@gmail.com>: 4. Try using in-line compression. This can actually significantly improve performance, especially if you have slow storage devices and a really

Re: BTRFS for OLTP Databases

On 2017-02-07 14:31, Peter Zaitsev wrote: Hi Hugo, As I re-read it closely (and also other comments in the thread) I know understand there is a difference how nodatacow works even if snapshot are in place. On autodefrag I wonder is there some more detailed documentation about how autodefrag

Re: Very slow balance / btrfs-transaction

On 2017-02-07 14:47, Kai Krakow wrote: Am Mon, 6 Feb 2017 08:19:37 -0500 schrieb "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" <ahferro...@gmail.com>: MDRAID uses stripe selection based on latency and other measurements (like head position). It would be nice if btrfs implemented similar functiona

Re: BTRFS for OLTP Databases

On 2017-02-07 15:19, Kai Krakow wrote: Am Tue, 7 Feb 2017 14:50:04 -0500 schrieb "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" <ahferro...@gmail.com>: Also does autodefrag works with nodatacow (ie with snapshot) or are these exclusive ? I'm not sure about this one. I would assume based on the fact

Re: BTRFS and cyrus mail server

On 2017-02-08 13:38, Libor Klepáč wrote: Hello, inspired by recent discussion on BTRFS vs. databases i wanted to ask on suitability of BTRFS for hosting a Cyrus imap server spool. I haven't found any recent article on this topic. I'm preparing migration of our mailserver to Debian Stretch, ie.

Re: understanding disk space usage

On 2017-02-08 09:46, Peter Grandi wrote: My system is or seems to be running out of disk space but I can't find out how or why. [ ... ] FilesystemSize Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/sda3 28G 26G 2.1G 93% / [ ... ] So from chunk level, your fs is already full.

Re: raid1: cannot add disk to replace faulty because can only mount fs as read-only.

On 2017-02-08 08:46, Tomasz Torcz wrote: On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 07:50:22AM -0500, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: It is exponentially safer in BTRFS to run single data single metadata than half raid1 data half raid1 metadata. Why? To convert to profiles _designed_ for a single device

Re: btrfs receive leaves new subvolume modifiable during operation

On 2017-02-02 05:52, Graham Cobb wrote: On 02/02/17 00:02, Duncan wrote: If it's a workaround, then many of the Linux procedures we as admins and users use every day are equally workarounds. Setting 007 perms on a dir that doesn't have anything immediately security vulnerable in it, simply to

Re: raid1: cannot add disk to replace faulty because can only mount fs as read-only.

On 2017-02-01 17:48, Duncan wrote: Adam Borowski posted on Wed, 01 Feb 2017 12:55:30 +0100 as excerpted: On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 05:23:16AM +, Duncan wrote: Hans Deragon posted on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 21:51:22 -0500 as excerpted: But the current scenario makes it difficult for me to put

Re: raid1: cannot add disk to replace faulty because can only mount fs as read-only.

On 2017-02-02 09:25, Adam Borowski wrote: On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 07:49:50AM -0500, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: This is a severe bug that makes a not all that uncommon (albeit bad) use case fail completely. The fix had no dependencies itself and I don't see what's bad in mounting a RAID

Re: BTRFS for OLTP Databases

On 2017-02-07 15:54, Kai Krakow wrote: Am Tue, 7 Feb 2017 15:27:34 -0500 schrieb "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" <ahferro...@gmail.com>: I'm not sure about this one. I would assume based on the fact that many other things don't work with nodatacow and that regular defrag doesn't wor

Re: [PATCH] btrfs-progs: better document btrfs receive security

On 2017-02-07 13:27, David Sterba wrote: On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 08:48:58AM -0500, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: This adds some extra documentation to the btrfs-receive manpage that explains some of the security related aspects of btrfs-receive. The first part covers the fact that the subvolume

Re: raid1: cannot add disk to replace faulty because can only mount fs as read-only.

On 2017-02-07 22:21, Hans Deragon wrote: Greetings, On 2017-02-02 10:06, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2017-02-02 09:25, Adam Borowski wrote: On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 07:49:50AM -0500, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: This is a severe bug that makes a not all that uncommon (albeit bad) use case

Re: user_subvol_rm_allowed? Is there a user_subvol_create_deny|allowed?

On 2017-02-07 20:49, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: Dear btrfs community, Please accept my apologies in advance if I missed something in recent btrfs development; my MUA tells me I'm ~1500 unread messages out-of-date. :/ I recently read about "mount -t btrfs -o user_subvol_rm_allowed" while doing

Re: BTRFS for OLTP Databases

On 2017-02-08 08:26, Martin Raiber wrote: On 08.02.2017 14:08 Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2017-02-08 07:14, Martin Raiber wrote: Hi, On 08.02.2017 03:11 Peter Zaitsev wrote: Out of curiosity, I see one problem here: If you're doing snapshots of the live database, each snapshot leaves

Re: dup vs raid1 in single disk

On 2017-02-07 17:28, Kai Krakow wrote: Am Thu, 19 Jan 2017 15:02:14 -0500 schrieb "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" <ahferro...@gmail.com>: On 2017-01-19 13:23, Roman Mamedov wrote: On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 17:39:37 +0100 "Alejandro R. Mosteo" <alejan...@mosteo.com> wrote:

Re: BTRFS for OLTP Databases

On 2017-02-08 07:14, Martin Raiber wrote: Hi, On 08.02.2017 03:11 Peter Zaitsev wrote: Out of curiosity, I see one problem here: If you're doing snapshots of the live database, each snapshot leaves the database files like killing the database in-flight. Like shutting the system down in the

Re: btrfs receive leaves new subvolume modifiable during operation

On 2017-02-03 04:14, Duncan wrote: Graham Cobb posted on Thu, 02 Feb 2017 10:52:26 + as excerpted: On 02/02/17 00:02, Duncan wrote: If it's a workaround, then many of the Linux procedures we as admins and users use every day are equally workarounds. Setting 007 perms on a dir that

Re: btrfs receive leaves new subvolume modifiable during operation

On 2017-02-03 10:44, Graham Cobb wrote: On 03/02/17 12:44, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: I can look at making a patch for this, but it may be next week before I have time (I'm not great at multi-tasking when it comes to software development, and I'm in the middle of helping to fix a bug

[PATCH] btrfs-progs: better document btrfs receive security

of the send stream. Signed-off-by: Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> --- Inspired by a recent thread on the ML. This could probably be more thorough, but I felt it was more important to get it documented as quickly as possible, and this should cover the basic info that most

Re: raid1: cannot add disk to replace faulty because can only mount fs as read-only.

On 2017-01-27 11:47, Hans Deragon wrote: On 2017-01-24 14:48, Adam Borowski wrote: On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 01:57:24PM -0500, Hans Deragon wrote: If I remove 'ro' from the option, I cannot get the filesystem mounted because of the following error: BTRFS: missing devices(1) exceeds the

Re: raid1: cannot add disk to replace faulty because can only mount fs as read-only.

On 2017-01-28 04:17, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: 27.01.2017 23:03, Austin S. Hemmelgarn пишет: On 2017-01-27 11:47, Hans Deragon wrote: On 2017-01-24 14:48, Adam Borowski wrote: On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 01:57:24PM -0500, Hans Deragon wrote: If I remove 'ro' from the option, I cannot get

Re: btrfs recovery

On 2017-01-28 00:00, Duncan wrote: Austin S. Hemmelgarn posted on Fri, 27 Jan 2017 07:58:20 -0500 as excerpted: On 2017-01-27 06:01, Oliver Freyermuth wrote: I'm also running 'memtester 12G' right now, which at least tests 2/3 of the memory. I'll leave that running for a day or so

Re: btrfs recovery

On 2017-01-27 06:01, Oliver Freyermuth wrote: I'm also running 'memtester 12G' right now, which at least tests 2/3 of the memory. I'll leave that running for a day or so, but of course it will not provide a clear answer... A small update: while the online memtester is without any errors

Re: Downgrading kernel 4.9 to 4.4 with space_cache=v2 enabled?

On 2017-02-23 19:54, Qu Wenruo wrote: At 02/23/2017 06:51 PM, Christian Theune wrote: Hi, not sure whether it’s possible, but we tried space_cache=v2 and obviously after working fine in staging it broke in production. Or rather: we upgraded from 4.4 to 4.9 and enabled the space_cache. Our

Re: Downgrading kernel 4.9 to 4.4 with space_cache=v2 enabled?

On 2017-02-23 08:19, Christian Theune wrote: Hi, just for future reference if someone finds this thread: there is a bit of output I’m seeing with this crashing kernel (unclear whether related to btrfs or not): 31 | 02/23/2017 | 09:51:22 | OS Stop/Shutdown #0x4f | Run-time critical stop |

Re: Downgrading kernel 4.9 to 4.4 with space_cache=v2 enabled?

On 2017-02-23 05:51, Christian Theune wrote: Hi, not sure whether it’s possible, but we tried space_cache=v2 and obviously after working fine in staging it broke in production. Or rather: we upgraded from 4.4 to 4.9 and enabled the space_cache. Our production volume is around 50TiB usable

Re: Unexpected behavior involving file attributes and snapshots.

On 2017-02-14 11:46, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2017-02-14 11:07, Chris Murphy wrote: On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 8:30 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: I was just experimenting with snapshots on 4.9.0, and came across some unexpected behavior. The simple expla

Unexpected behavior involving file attributes and snapshots.

I was just experimenting with snapshots on 4.9.0, and came across some unexpected behavior. The simple explanation is that if you snapshot a subvolume, any files in the subvolume that have the NOCOW attribute will not have that attribute in the snapshot. Some further testing indicates that

Re: Unexpected behavior involving file attributes and snapshots.

On 2017-02-14 11:07, Chris Murphy wrote: On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 8:30 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: I was just experimenting with snapshots on 4.9.0, and came across some unexpected behavior. The simple explanation is that if you snapshot a subvolume, any

<    2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   >