Re: understanding disk space usage

On 2017-02-08 16:45, Peter Grandi wrote: [ ... ] The issue isn't total size, it's the difference between total size and the amount of data you want to store on it. and how well you manage chunk usage. If you're balancing regularly to compact chunks that are less than 50% full, [ ... ] BTRFS on

Re: csum failed, checksum error, questions

On 2017-02-08 20:42, Ian Kelling wrote: I had a file read fail repeatably, in syslog, lines like this kernel: BTRFS warning (device dm-5): csum failed ino 2241616 off 51580928 csum 4redacted expected csum 2redacted I rmed the file. Another error more recently, 5 instances which look like

Re: BTRFS and cyrus mail server

On 2017-02-09 06:49, Adam Borowski wrote: On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 02:21:13PM -0500, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: - maybe deduplication (cyrus does it by hardlinking of same content messages now) later Deduplication beyond what Cyrus does is probably not worth it. In most cases about 10

Re: Way to force allocation of more metadata?

On 2017-02-16 15:13, E V wrote: It would be nice if there was an easy way to tell btrfs to allocate another metadata chunk. For example, the below fs is full due to exhausted metadata: Device size:1013.28GiB Device allocated: 1013.28GiB Device unallocated:

Re: man filesystems(5) doesn't contain Btrfs

On 2017-02-16 15:36, Chris Murphy wrote: Hi, This man page contains a list for pretty much every other file system, with a oneliner description: ext4, XFS is in there, and even NTFS, but not Btrfs. Also, /etc/filesystems doesn't contain Btrfs. Anyone know if either, or both, ought to contain

Re: understanding disk space usage

On 2017-02-09 08:25, Adam Borowski wrote: On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 11:48:04AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: Just don't believe the vanilla df output for btrfs. For btrfs, unlike other fs like ext4/xfs, which allocates chunk dynamically and has different metadata/data profile, we can only get a clear

Re: BTRFS for OLTP Databases

On 2017-02-09 22:58, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: 07.02.2017 23:47, Austin S. Hemmelgarn пишет: ... Sadly, freezefs (the generic interface based off of xfs_freeze) only works for block device snapshots. Filesystem level snapshots need the application software to sync all it's data and then stop

Re: Help understanding autodefrag details

On 2017-02-10 09:21, Peter Zaitsev wrote: Hi, As I have been reading btrfs whitepaper it speaks about autodefrag in very generic terms - once random write in the file is detected it is put in the queue to be defragmented. Yet I could not find any specifics about this process described

Re: Opps.. Should be 4.9/4.10 Experiences

On 2017-02-17 03:26, Duncan wrote: Imran Geriskovan posted on Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:42:09 +0200 as excerpted: Opps.. I mean 4.9/4.10 Experiences On 2/16/17, Imran Geriskovan wrote: What are your experiences for btrfs regarding 4.10 and 4.11 kernels? I'm still on

Re: Unocorrectable errors with RAID1

On 2017-01-16 06:10, Christoph Groth wrote: Hi, I’ve been using a btrfs RAID1 of two hard disks since early 2012 on my home server. The machine has been working well overall, but recently some problems with the file system surfaced. Since I do have backups, I do not worry about the data, but

Re: Unocorrectable errors with RAID1

On 2017-01-16 10:42, Christoph Groth wrote: Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2017-01-16 06:10, Christoph Groth wrote: root@mim:~# btrfs fi df / Data, RAID1: total=417.00GiB, used=344.62GiB Data, single: total=8.00MiB, used=0.00B System, RAID1: total=40.00MiB, used=68.00KiB System, single

Re: Unocorrectable errors with RAID1

On 2017-01-16 23:50, Janos Toth F. wrote: BTRFS uses a 2 level allocation system. At the higher level, you have chunks. These are just big blocks of space on the disk that get used for only one type of lower level allocation (Data, Metadata, or System). Data chunks are normally 1GB, Metadata

Re: Unocorrectable errors with RAID1

On 2017-01-17 04:18, Christoph Groth wrote: Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: There's not really much in the way of great documentation that I know of. I can however cover the basics here: (...) Thanks for this explanation. I'm sure it will be also useful to others. Glad I could help

Re: Cannot mount vol after balance crash

On 2017-01-18 09:21, Steven Hum wrote: Added 2 drives to my RAID10, then ran btrfs balance. The system appears to have crashed after several hours (I was ssh'd in at the time on my local network). When I reboot the Arch system, I ran btrfs check and no errors were reported. However, attempting

Re: dup vs raid1 in single disk

On 2017-01-19 13:23, Roman Mamedov wrote: On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 17:39:37 +0100 "Alejandro R. Mosteo" wrote: I was wondering, from a point of view of data safety, if there is any difference between using dup or making a raid1 from two partitions in the same disk. This is

Re: Fwd: dup vs raid1 in single disk

On 2017-01-19 11:39, Alejandro R. Mosteo wrote: Hello list, I was wondering, from a point of view of data safety, if there is any difference between using dup or making a raid1 from two partitions in the same disk. This is thinking on having some protection against the typical aging HDD that

Re: About minimal device number for RAID5/6

On 2016-08-15 21:32, Qu Wenruo wrote: At 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

Re: Low IOOP Performance

On 2017-02-27 14:15, John Marrett wrote: Liubo correctly identified direct IO as a solution for my test performance issues, with it in use I achieved 908 read and 305 write, not quite as fast as ZFS but more than adequate for my needs. I then applied Peter's recommendation of switching to raid10

Re: Please disable balance auto-resume for 4.9 (or even 4.8)

On 2016-08-25 05:38, Holger Hoffstätte wrote: Automatically resuming an interrupted balance has repeatedly caused all sorts of problems because it creates a possible failure mode when a user can least use it: after a crash/power loss/sudden reboot (which, like it or not, is the de facto "fix

Re: your mail

On 2016-09-01 12:44, Kyle Gates wrote: -Original Message- From: linux-btrfs-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-btrfs- ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Austin S. Hemmelgarn Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 6:18 AM To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: your mail On 2016-09-01

Re: Security implications of btrfs receive?

On 2016-09-05 05:59, Graham Cobb wrote: Does anyone know of a security analysis of btrfs receive? I'm not a developer, and definitely not a security specialist, just a security minded sysadmin who has some idea what's going on, but I can at least try and answer this. I assume that just using

Re: [OT] Re: Balancing subvolume on a specific device

On 2016-09-02 06:55, Duncan wrote: Kai Krakow posted on Thu, 01 Sep 2016 21:45:19 +0200 as excerpted: Am Sat, 20 Aug 2016 06:30:11 + (UTC) schrieb Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net>: There's at least three other options to try to get what you mention, however. FWIW, I'm a gentooer and thus

Re: BTRFS constantly reports "No space left on device" even with a huge unallocated space

On 2016-09-01 13:12, Jeff Mahoney wrote: On 9/1/16 1:04 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2016-09-01 12:34, Ronan Arraes Jardim Chagas wrote: Em Qui, 2016-09-01 às 09:21 -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn escreveu: Yes, you can just run `btrfs quota disable /` and it should work. This ironically

Re: BTRFS constantly reports "No space left on device" even with a huge unallocated space

On 2016-09-01 12:34, Ronan Arraes Jardim Chagas wrote: Em Qui, 2016-09-01 às 09:21 -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn escreveu: Yes, you can just run `btrfs quota disable /` and it should work. This ironically reiterates that one of the bigger problems with BTRFS is that distros are enabling unstable

Re: Recommendation on raid5 drive error resolution

On 2016-08-31 19:04, Gareth Pye wrote: ro,degraded has mounted it nicely and my rsync of the more useful data is progressing at the speed of WiFi. There are repeated read errors from one drive still but the rsync hasn't bailed yet, which I think means there isn't any overlapping errors in any

Re: your mail

On 2016-09-01 03:44, M G Berberich wrote: Am Mittwoch, den 31. August schrieb Fennec Fox: Linux Titanium 4.7.2-1-MANJARO #1 SMP PREEMPT Sun Aug 21 15:04:37 UTC 2016 x86_64 GNU/Linux btrfs-progs v4.7 Data, single: total=30.01GiB, used=18.95GiB System, single: total=4.00MiB, used=16.00KiB

Re: BTRFS constantly reports "No space left on device" even with a huge unallocated space

On 2016-09-01 08:57, Ronan Arraes Jardim Chagas wrote: Hi! Em Qua, 2016-08-31 às 17:09 -0600, Chris Murphy escreveu: OK so Ronan, I'm gonna guess the simplest work around for your problem is to disable quota support, and see if the problem happens again. Look at the output of the command

Re: Security implications of btrfs receive?

On 2016-09-06 13:20, Graham Cobb wrote: Thanks to Austin and Duncan for their replies. On 06/09/16 13:15, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2016-09-05 05:59, Graham Cobb wrote: Does the "path" argument of btrfs-receive mean that *all* operations are confined to that path? For example,

Re: Security implications of btrfs receive?

On 2016-09-07 15:34, Chris Murphy wrote: On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: I think I covered it already in the last thread on this, but the best way I see to fix the whole auto-assembly issue is: 1. Stop the damn auto-scanning of new d

Re: Security implications of btrfs receive?

On 2016-09-07 10:44, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: On Wed, 2016-09-07 at 07:58 -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: if you want proper security you should be using a real container system Won't these probably use the same filesystems? That depends on how it's set up. Most container software

Re: Security implications of btrfs receive?

On 2016-09-07 10:41, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: On Tue, 2016-09-06 at 18:20 +0100, Graham Cobb wrote: they know the UUID of the subvolume? Unfortunately, btrfs seems to be pretty problematic when anyone knows your UUIDs... This is an issue with any filesystem, it is just a bigger issue

Re: Security implications of btrfs receive?

On 2016-09-07 07:58, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2016-09-06 13:20, Graham Cobb wrote: Thanks to Austin and Duncan for their replies. On 06/09/16 13:15, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2016-09-05 05:59, Graham Cobb wrote: Does the "path" argument of btrfs-receive mean that *all*

Re: Security implications of btrfs receive?

On 2016-09-09 12:18, David Sterba wrote: On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 07:58:30AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2016-09-06 13:20, Graham Cobb wrote: Thanks to Austin and Duncan for their replies. On 06/09/16 13:15, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2016-09-05 05:59, Graham Cobb wrote: Does

Re: Security implications of btrfs receive?

On 2016-09-09 14:58, Chris Murphy wrote: On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 5:48 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: On 2016-09-07 15:34, Chris Murphy wrote: I like the idea of matching WWN as part of the check, with a couple of caveats: 1. We need to keep in mind that i

Re: btrfs kernel oops on mount

On 2016-09-09 15:23, moparisthebest wrote: On 09/09/2016 02:47 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2016-09-09 12:12, moparisthebest wrote: Hi, I'm hoping to get some help with mounting my btrfs array which quit working yesterday. My array was in the middle of a balance, about 50% remaining

Re: Is stability a joke?

On 2016-09-11 09:02, Hugo Mills wrote: On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 02:39:14PM +0200, Waxhead wrote: Martin Steigerwald wrote: Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 13:43:59 CEST schrieb Martin Steigerwald: Thing is: This just seems to be when has a feature been implemented matrix. Not when it is

Re: Is stability a joke?

On 2016-09-11 13:11, Duncan wrote: Martin Steigerwald posted on Sun, 11 Sep 2016 14:05:03 +0200 as excerpted: Just add another column called "Production ready". Then research / ask about production stability of each feature. The only challenge is: Who is authoritative on that? I´d certainly

Re: Is stability a joke?

On 2016-09-12 08:59, Michel Bouissou wrote: Le lundi 12 septembre 2016, 08:20:20 Austin S. Hemmelgarn a écrit : FWIW, here's a list of what I personally consider stable (as in, I'm willing to bet against reduced uptime to use this stuff on production systems at work and personal systems at home

Re: Small fs

On 2016-09-11 15:21, Martin Steigerwald wrote: Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 21:56:07 CEST schrieb Imran Geriskovan: On 9/11/16, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: Martin Steigerwald posted on Sun, 11 Sep 2016 17:32:44 +0200 as excerpted: What is the smallest recommended fs size for

Re: Small fs

On 2016-09-11 15:51, Martin Steigerwald wrote: Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 19:46:32 CEST schrieb Hugo Mills: On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 09:13:28PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote: Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 16:44:23 CEST schrieb Duncan: * Metadata, and thus mixed-bg, defaults to DUP

Re: btrfs kernel oops on mount

On 2016-09-12 08:33, Jeff Mahoney wrote: On 9/9/16 8:47 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: A couple of other things to comment about on this: 1. 'can_overcommit' (the function that the Arch kernel choked on) is from the memory management subsystem. The fact that that's throwing a null pointer

Re: Small fs

On 2016-09-12 08:54, Imran Geriskovan wrote: On 9/11/16, Chris Murphy wrote: Something else that's screwy in that bug that I just realized, why is it not defaulting to mixed-block groups on a 100MiB fallocated file? I thought mixed-bg was the default below a certain

Re: Filesystem forced to readonly after use

On 2016-09-13 16:39, Cesar Strauss wrote: On 13-09-2016 16:49, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: I'd be kind of curious to see the results from btrfs check run without repair, but I doubt that will help narrow things down any further. Attached. As of right now, the absolute first thing I'd do

Re: Filesystem forced to readonly after use

On 2016-09-13 15:20, Cesar Strauss wrote: Hello, I have a BTRFS filesystem that is reverting to read-only after a few moments of use. There is a stack trace visible in the kernel log, which is attached. Here is my system information: # uname -a Linux rescue 4.7.2-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Sat

Re: btrfs kernel oops on mount

On 2016-09-09 12:12, moparisthebest wrote: Hi, I'm hoping to get some help with mounting my btrfs array which quit working yesterday. My array was in the middle of a balance, about 50% remaining, when it hit an error and remounted itself read-only [1]. btrfs fi show output [2], btrfs df output

Re: btrfs kernel oops on mount

On 2016-09-09 14:32, moparisthebest wrote: On 09/09/2016 01:51 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 10:12 AM, moparisthebest wrote: Hi, I'm hoping to get some help with mounting my btrfs array which quit working yesterday. My array was in the middle of a

Re: Security implications of btrfs receive?

On 2016-09-09 12:33, David Sterba wrote: On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 03:08:18PM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2016-09-07 14:07, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: On Wed, 2016-09-07 at 11:06 -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: This is an issue with any filesystem, Not really... any other

Re: Small fs

On 2016-09-12 14:46, Imran Geriskovan wrote: Wait wait wait a second: This is 256 MB SINGLE created by GPARTED, which is the replacement of MANUALLY CREATED 127MB DUP which is now non-existant.. Which I was not aware it was a DUP at the time.. Peeww... Small btrfs is full of surprises.. ;)

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On 2016-09-12 12:27, David Sterba wrote: On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 04:27:14PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: I therefore would like to propose that some sort of feature / stability matrix for the latest kernel is added to the wiki preferably somewhere where it is easy to find. It would be nice to

Re: Is stability a joke?

On 2016-09-12 12:51, David Sterba wrote: On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:54:40AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: Somebody has put that table on the wiki, so it's a good starting point. I'm not sure we can fit everything into one table, some combinations do not bring new information and we'd need

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On 2016-09-12 13:29, Filipe Manana wrote: On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: On 2016-09-12 12:27, David Sterba wrote: On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 04:27:14PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: I therefore would like to propose that some sort of f

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On 2016-09-12 16:44, Chris Murphy wrote: On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Martin Steigerwald wrote: Am Montag, 12. September 2016, 23:21:09 CEST schrieb Pasi Kärkkäinen: On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 09:57:17PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote: Am Montag, 12. September 2016,

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On 2016-09-12 16:08, Chris Murphy wrote: On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: Things listed as TBD status: 1. Seeding: Seems to work fine the couple of times I've tested it, however I've only done very light testing, and the whole f

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On 2016-09-13 04:38, Timofey Titovets wrote: https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Status I suggest to mark RAID1/10 as 'mostly ok' as on btrfs RAID1/10 is safe to data, but not for application that uses it. i.e. it not hide I/O error even if it's can be masked.

Re: Security implications of btrfs receive?

On 2016-09-12 16:25, Chris Murphy wrote: On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 5:24 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: After device discovery, specify UUID= instead of a device node. Oh yeah good point, -U --uuid is also doable. I'm not sure what the benefit is of using sysfs to

Re: [RFC] Preliminary BTRFS Encryption

On 2016-09-15 10:06, Anand Jain wrote: Thanks for comments. Pls see inline as below. On 09/15/2016 07:37 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2016-09-13 09:39, Anand Jain wrote: This patchset adds btrfs encryption support. The main objective of this series is to have bugs fixed and stability

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On 2016-09-15 14:01, Chris Murphy wrote: On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 5:35 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: On 2016-09-12 16:08, Chris Murphy wrote: - btrfsck status e.g. btrfs-progs 4.7.2 still warns against using --repair, and lists it under dangerous options also;

Re: Small fs

On 2016-09-12 10:51, Chris Murphy wrote: On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Henk Slager wrote: FWIW, I use BTRFS for /boot, but it's not for snapshotting or even the COW, it's for DUP mode and the error recovery it provides. Most people don't think about this if it hasn't

Re: Small fs

On 2016-09-12 10:09, Henk Slager wrote: FWIW, I use BTRFS for /boot, but it's not for snapshotting or even the COW, it's for DUP mode and the error recovery it provides. Most people don't think about this if it hasn't happened to them, but if you get a bad read from /boot when loading the

Re: Is stability a joke?

On 2016-09-12 10:27, David Sterba wrote: Hi, first, thanks for choosing a catchy subject, this always helps. While it will serve as another beating stick to those who enjoy bashing btrfs, I'm glad to see people answer in a constructive way. On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 10:55:21AM +0200, Waxhead

Re: btrfs kernel oops on mount

On 2016-09-12 09:27, Jeff Mahoney wrote: On 9/12/16 2:54 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2016-09-12 08:33, Jeff Mahoney wrote: On 9/9/16 8:47 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: A couple of other things to comment about on this: 1. 'can_overcommit' (the function that the Arch kernel choked

Re: raid levels and NAS drives

On 2016-10-09 19:12, Charles Zeitler wrote: Is there any advantage to using NAS drives under RAID levels, as oppposed to regular 'desktop' drives for BTRFS? Before I answer the question, it is worth explaining the differences between the marketing terms 'desktop', 'enterprise', 'NAS', and

Re: RAID1 availability issue[2], Hot-spare and auto-replace

On 2016-09-18 13:28, Chris Murphy wrote: On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 2:34 AM, Anand Jain wrote: (updated the subject, was [1]) IMO the hot-spare feature makes most sense with the raid56, Why. ? Raid56 is not scalable, has less redundancy in most all configurations,

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On 2016-09-18 22:57, Zygo Blaxell wrote: On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 08:00:44AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: To be entirely honest, both zero-log and super-recover could probably be pretty easily integrated into btrfs check such that it detects when they need to be run and does so. zero-log

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On 2016-09-18 23:47, Zygo Blaxell wrote: On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:56:03PM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: 4. File Range Cloning and Out-of-band Dedupe: Similarly, work fine if the FS is healthy. I've found issues with OOB dedup (clone/extent-same): 1. Don't dedup data that has not been

Re: [RFC] Preliminary BTRFS Encryption

On 2016-09-13 09:39, Anand Jain wrote: This patchset adds btrfs encryption support. The main objective of this series is to have bugs fixed and stability. I have verified with fstests to confirm that there is no regression. A design write-up is coming next, however here below is the quick

Re: stability matrix

On 2016-09-15 05:49, Hans van Kranenburg wrote: On 09/15/2016 04:14 AM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: Hey. As for the stability matrix... In general: - I think another column should be added, which tells when and for which kernel version the feature-status of each row was

Re: RAID1 availability issue[2], Hot-spare and auto-replace

On 2016-09-18 22:25, Anand Jain wrote: Chris Murphy, Thanks for writing in detail, it makes sense.. Generally hot spare is to reduce the risk of double disk failures leading to the data lose at the data centers before the data is reconstructed again for redundancy. On 09/19/2016 01:28

Re: stability matrix

On 2016-09-19 11:27, David Sterba wrote: Hi, On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 04:14:04AM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: In general: - I think another column should be added, which tells when and for which kernel version the feature-status of each row was revised/updated the last time and

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On 2016-09-19 00:08, Zygo Blaxell wrote: On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 01:02:43PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: Right, well I'm vaguely curious why ZFS, as different as it is, basically take the position that if the hardware went so batshit that they can't unwind it on a normal mount, then an fsck

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On 2016-09-19 14:27, Chris Murphy wrote: On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: ReiserFS had no working fsck for all of the 8 years I used it (and still didn't last year when I tried to use it on an old disk). "Not working" here

Re: Thoughts on btrfs RAID-1 for cold storage/archive?

necessary, I only listed it as that will provide automatic recovery of things the FEC support in dm-verity can't fix. In a situation where I can be relatively sure that the errors will be infrequent and probably not co-located, I would probably skip it myself. On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 7:45 AM, Austin S

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On 2016-09-15 17:23, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: On Thu, 2016-09-15 at 14:20 -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: 3. Fsck should be needed only for un-mountable filesystems. Ideally, we should be handling things like Windows does. Preform slightly better checking when reading data

Re: Thoughts on btrfs RAID-1 for cold storage/archive?

On 2016-09-15 22:58, Duncan wrote: E V posted on Thu, 15 Sep 2016 11:48:13 -0400 as excerpted: I'm investigating using btrfs for archiving old data and offsite storage, essentially put 2 drives in btrfs RAID-1, copy the data to the filesystem and then unmount, remove a drive and take it to an

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On 2016-09-15 16:26, Chris Murphy wrote: On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Hugo Mills <h...@carfax.org.uk> wrote: On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 01:02:43PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: 2. We're developing

Re: Security implications of btrfs receive?

On 2016-09-07 14:07, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: On Wed, 2016-09-07 at 11:06 -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: This is an issue with any filesystem, Not really... any other filesystem I'd know (not sure about ZFS) keeps working when there are UUID collisions... or at least it won't cause

Re: Security implications of btrfs receive?

On 2016-09-07 12:10, Graham Cobb wrote: On 07/09/16 16:20, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: I should probably add to this that you shouldn't be accepting send/receive data streams from untrusted sources anyway. While it probably won't crash your system, it's not intended for use as something like

Re: Switch raid mode without rebalance?

On 2016-08-25 18:32, Gert Menke wrote: Hi, On 2016-08-25 20:26, Justin Kilpatrick wrote: I'm not sure why you want to avoid a balance, I didn't check, but I imagined it would slow down my rsync significantly. It will slow it down, but I can't tell you exactly how much (there are too many

Re: btrfs and systemd

On 2016-08-29 07:18, Imran Geriskovan wrote: I can't find any fstab setting for systemd to higher this timeout. There's just the x-systemd.device-timeout but this controls how long to wait for the device and not for the mount command. Is there any solution for big btrfs volumes and systemd?

Re: Will Btrfs have an official command to "uncow" existing files?

On 2016-08-22 22:43, Chris Murphy wrote: On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Darrick J. Wong wrote: [add Dave and Christoph to cc] On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 04:14:19PM -0400, Jeff Mahoney wrote: On 8/21/16 2:59 PM, Tomokhov Alexander wrote: Btrfs wiki FAQ gives a link to

Re: Announcing btrfs-dedupe

On 2016-11-08 11:57, Darrick J. Wong wrote: On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 08:26:02AM -0500, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2016-11-07 21:40, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: On Mon, 2016-11-07 at 15:02 +0100, David Sterba wrote: I think adding a whole-file dedup mode to duperemove would be better

Re: Could receive allow updating an existing subvolume?

On 2016-11-08 18:15, Ian Kelling wrote: On Tue, Nov 8, 2016, at 03:00 PM, Hugo Mills wrote: On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 02:48:56PM -0800, Ian Kelling wrote: It seems to be an artificially imposed limitation which hurts which hurts its usefulness. Let me know if this makes sense. If so, perhaps it

Re: btrfs scrub with unexpected results

speed, I'd upgrade RAM before upgrading the CPU most of the time for most systems). -- Tom Arild Naess On 03. nov. 2016 12:51, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2016-11-02 17:55, Tom Arild Naess wrote: Hello, I have been running btrfs on a file server and backup server for a couple of years now

Re: btrfs scrub with unexpected results

On 2016-11-09 12:30, Tom Arild Naess wrote: On 09. nov. 2016 14:04, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2016-11-09 07:40, Tom Arild Naess wrote: Thanks for your lengthy answer. Just after posting my question I realized that the last reboot I did resulted in the filesystem being mounted RO. I

Re: Announcing btrfs-dedupe

On 2016-11-07 21:40, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: On Mon, 2016-11-07 at 15:02 +0100, David Sterba wrote: I think adding a whole-file dedup mode to duperemove would be better (from user's POV) than writing a whole new tool What would IMO be really good from a user's POV was, if one of the

Re: [PATCH] f2fs: support multiple devices

On 2016-11-09 21:29, Qu Wenruo wrote: At 11/10/2016 06:57 AM, Andreas Dilger wrote: On Nov 9, 2016, at 1:56 PM, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: This patch implements multiple devices support for f2fs. Given multiple devices by mkfs.f2fs, f2fs shows them entirely as one big volume

Re: Is it possible to speed up unlink()?

On 2016-10-20 05:29, Timofey Titovets wrote: Hi, i use btrfs for NFS VM replica storage and for NFS shared VM storage. At now i have a small problem what VM image deletion took to long time and NFS client show a timeout on deletion (ESXi Storage migration as example). Kernel: Linux nfs05

Re: Copy BTRFS volume to another BTRFS volume including subvolumes and snapshots

On 2016-10-13 17:21, Alberto Bursi wrote: Hi, I'm using OpenSUSE on a btrfs volume spanning 2 disks (set as raid1 for both metadata and data), no separate /home partition. The distro loves to create dozens of subvolumes for various things and makes snapshots, see: alby@openSUSE-xeon:~> sudo

Re: Unable to rescue RAID5

On 2016-10-14 06:11, Hiroshi Honda wrote: That's the proper answer. In practice... all hope isn't yet lost. I understood the proper answer. I'll take care it in the future. Is there something step/method can I do from this situation? You should probably look at `btrfs restore`. I'm not sure

Re: btrfs and numa - needing drop_caches to keep speed up

On 2016-10-14 02:28, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote: Hello list, while running the same workload on two machines (single xeon and a dual xeon) both with 64GB RAM. I need to run echo 3 >/proc/sys/vm/drop_caches every 15-30 minutes to keep the speed as good as on the non numa system. I'm not

Re: Is it possible to speed up unlink()?

On 2016-10-20 11:26, Roman Mamedov wrote: On Thu, 20 Oct 2016 08:09:14 -0400 "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: So, it's possible to return unlink() early? or this a bad idea(and why)? I may be completely off about this, but I could have sworn that unlin

Re: Monitoring Btrfs

On 2016-10-17 23:23, Anand Jain wrote: I would like to monitor my btrfs-filesystem for missing drives. This is actually correct behavior, the filesystem reports that it should have 6 devices, which is how it knows a device is missing. Missing - means missing at the time of mount. So how

Re: Monitoring Btrfs

On 2016-10-17 16:40, Chris Murphy wrote: May be better to use /sys/fs/btrfs//devices to find the device to monitor, and then monitor them with blktrace - maybe there's some courser granularity available there, I'm not sure. The thing is, as far as Btrfs alone is concerned, a drive can be "bad"

Re: Btrfs dev del

On 2016-10-18 11:02, Stefan Malte Schumacher wrote: Hello One of the drives which I added to my array two days ago was most likely already damaged when I bought it - 312 read errors while scrubbing and lots of SMART errors. I want to take the drive out, go to my hardware vendor and have it

Re: Is it possible to speed up unlink()?

On 2016-10-20 13:33, ronnie sahlberg wrote: On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: On 2016-10-20 09:47, Timofey Titovets wrote: 2016-10-20 15:09 GMT+03:00 Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com>: On 2016-10-20 05:29, Timofey Ti

Re: Drive Replacement

On 2016-10-21 18:13, Peter Becker wrote: if you have >750 GB free you can simply remove one of the drives. btrfs device delete /dev/sd[x] /mnt #power off, replace device btrfs device add /dev/sd[y] /mnt Make sure to balance afterwards if you do this, the new disk will be pretty much unused

Re: Monitoring Btrfs

On 2016-10-19 09:06, Anand Jain wrote: On 10/19/16 19:15, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2016-10-18 17:36, Anand Jain wrote: I would like to monitor my btrfs-filesystem for missing drives. This is actually correct behavior, the filesystem reports that it should have 6 devices, which

Re: Monitoring Btrfs

On 2016-10-18 17:36, Anand Jain wrote: I would like to monitor my btrfs-filesystem for missing drives. This is actually correct behavior, the filesystem reports that it should have 6 devices, which is how it knows a device is missing. Missing - means missing at the time of mount. So

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: raid56: Use correct stolen pages to calculate P/Q

On 2016-11-28 14:01, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: On Mon, 2016-11-28 at 19:45 +0100, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: I am understanding that the status of RAID5/6 code is so badly Just some random thought: If the code for raid56 is really as bad as it's often claimed (I haven't read it, to be

Re: degraded BTRFS RAID 1 not mountable: open_ctree failed, unable to find block group for 0

On 2016-11-16 05:55, Martin Steigerwald wrote: Am Mittwoch, 16. November 2016, 15:43:36 CET schrieb Roman Mamedov: On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 11:25:00 +0100 Martin Steigerwald wrote: merkaba:~> mount -o degraded,clear_cache /dev/satafp1/backup /mnt/zeit mount:

<    3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   >