Re: raid1 degraded mount still produce single chunks, writeable mount not allowed

On 2017-03-09 04:49, Peter Grandi wrote: Consider the common case of a 3-member volume with a 'raid1' target profile: if the sysadm thinks that a drive should be replaced, the goal is to take it out *without* converting every chunk to 'single', because with 2-out-of-3 devices half of the chunks

Re: Home storage with btrfs

On 2017-03-13 07:52, Juan Orti Alcaine wrote: 2017-03-13 12:29 GMT+01:00 Hérikz Nawarro : Hello everyone, Today is safe to use btrfs for home storage? No raid, just secure storage for some files and create snapshots from it. In my humble opinion, yes. I'm running a

Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] Chunk level degradable check

es.c | 156 - fs/btrfs/volumes.h | 37 + 6 files changed, 188 insertions(+), 101 deletions(-) Everything appears to work as advertised here, so for the patcheset as a whole, you can add: Tested-by: Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gma

Re: raid1 degraded mount still produce single chunks, writeable mount not allowed

On 2017-03-05 14:13, Peter Grandi wrote: What makes me think that "unmirrored" 'raid1' profile chunks are "not a thing" is that it is impossible to remove explicitly a member device from a 'raid1' profile volume: first one has to 'convert' to 'single', and then the 'remove' copies back to the

Re: raid1 degraded mount still produce single chunks, writeable mount not allowed

On 2017-03-03 15:10, Kai Krakow wrote: Am Fri, 3 Mar 2017 07:19:06 -0500 schrieb "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" <ahferro...@gmail.com>: On 2017-03-03 00:56, Kai Krakow wrote: Am Thu, 2 Mar 2017 11:37:53 +0100 schrieb Adam Borowski <kilob...@angband.pl>: On Wed, Mar 01, 20

Re: raid1 degraded mount still produce single chunks, writeable mount not allowed

On 2017-03-02 12:26, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: 02.03.2017 16:41, Duncan пишет: Chris Murphy posted on Wed, 01 Mar 2017 17:30:37 -0700 as excerpted: [1717713.408675] BTRFS warning (device dm-8): missing devices (1) exceeds the limit (0), writeable mount is not allowed [1717713.446453] BTRFS

Re: raid1 degraded mount still produce single chunks, writeable mount not allowed

On 2017-03-02 19:47, Peter Grandi wrote: [ ... ] Meanwhile, the problem as I understand it is that at the first raid1 degraded writable mount, no single-mode chunks exist, but without the second device, they are created. [ ... ] That does not make any sense, unless there is a fundamental

Re: raid1 degraded mount still produce single chunks, writeable mount not allowed

On 2017-03-03 00:56, Kai Krakow wrote: Am Thu, 2 Mar 2017 11:37:53 +0100 schrieb Adam Borowski : On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 05:30:37PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: [1717713.408675] BTRFS warning (device dm-8): missing devices (1) exceeds the limit (0), writeable mount is not

Re: Volume appears full but TB's of space available

On 2017-04-07 12:28, Chris Murphy wrote: On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 7:50 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: If you care about both performance and data safety, I would suggest using BTRFS raid1 mode on top of LVM or MD RAID0 together with having good backups and good moni

Re: Volume appears full but TB's of space available

On 2017-04-07 12:04, Chris Murphy wrote: On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 5:41 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: I'm rather fond of running BTRFS raid1 on top of LVM RAID0 volumes, which while it provides no better data safety than BTRFS raid10 mode, gets noticeably

Re: Volume appears full but TB's of space available

On 2017-04-07 13:05, John Petrini wrote: The use case actually is not Ceph, I was just drawing a comparison between Ceph's object replication strategy vs BTRF's chunk mirroring. That's actually a really good comparison that I hadn't thought of before. From what I can tell from my limited

Re: Volume appears full but TB's of space available

On 2017-04-07 12:58, John Petrini wrote: When you say "running BTRFS raid1 on top of LVM RAID0 volumes" do you mean creating two LVM RAID-0 volumes and then putting BTRFS RAID1 on the two resulting logical volumes? Yes, although it doesn't have to be LVM, it could just as easily be MD or even

Re: Volume appears full but TB's of space available

On 2017-04-07 09:28, John Petrini wrote: Hi Austin, Thanks for taking to time to provide all of this great information! Glad I could help. You've got me curious about RAID1. If I were to convert the array to RAID1 could it then sustain a multi drive failure? Or in other words do I actually

Re: Btrfs/SSD

On 2017-04-17 15:22, Imran Geriskovan wrote: On 4/17/17, Roman Mamedov <r...@romanrm.net> wrote: "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: * Compression should help performance and device lifetime most of the time, unless your CPU is fully utilized on a r

Re: Btrfs/SSD

On 2017-04-17 15:39, Chris Murphy wrote: On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: On 2017-04-17 14:34, Chris Murphy wrote: Nope. The first paragraph applies to NVMe machine with ssd mount option. Few fragments. The second paragraph applies

Re: Best Practice: Add new device to RAID1 pool (Summary)

On 2017-07-29 19:04, Cloud Admin wrote: Am Montag, den 24.07.2017, 18:40 +0200 schrieb Cloud Admin: Am Montag, den 24.07.2017, 10:25 -0400 schrieb Austin S. Hemmelgarn: On 2017-07-24 10:12, Cloud Admin wrote: Am Montag, den 24.07.2017, 09:46 -0400 schrieb Austin S. Hemmelgarn: On 2017-07-24

Re: btrfs-freespace ever doing anything?

On 2017-07-31 06:51, Sebastian Ochmann wrote: Hello, I have a quite simple and possibly stupid question. Since I'm occasionally seeing warnings about failed loading of free space cache, I wanted to clear and rebuild space cache. So I mounted the filesystem(s) with -o clear_cache and

Re: btrfs-freespace ever doing anything?

On 2017-07-31 08:30, Sebastian Ochmann wrote: On 31.07.2017 14:08, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2017-07-31 06:51, Sebastian Ochmann wrote: Hello, I have a quite simple and possibly stupid question. Since I'm occasionally seeing warnings about failed loading of free space cache, I wanted

Re: Massive loss of disk space

On 2017-08-02 13:52, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: Hi, On 2017-08-01 17:00, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: OK, I just did a dead simple test by hand, and it looks like I was right. The method I used to check this is as follows: 1. Create and mount a reasonably small filesystem (I used an 8G

Re: Massive loss of disk space

On 2017-08-02 00:14, Duncan wrote: Austin S. Hemmelgarn posted on Tue, 01 Aug 2017 10:47:30 -0400 as excerpted: I think I _might_ understand what's going on here. Is that test program calling fallocate using the desired total size of the file, or just trying to allocate the range beyond

Re: RedHat 7.4 Release Notes: "Btrfs has been deprecated" - wut?

On 2017-08-02 04:38, Brendan Hide wrote: The title seems alarmist to me - and I suspect it is going to be misconstrued. :-/ From the release notes at

Re: Massive loss of disk space

On 2017-08-03 12:37, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: On 2017-08-03 13:39, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2017-08-02 17:05, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: On 2017-08-02 21:10, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2017-08-02 13:52, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: Hi, [...] consider the following scenario

Re: Massive loss of disk space

On 2017-08-03 13:15, Marat Khalili wrote: On August 3, 2017 7:01:06 PM GMT+03:00, Goffredo Baroncelli The file is physically extended ghigo@venice:/tmp$ fallocate -l 1000 foo.txt For clarity let's replace the fallocate above with: $ head -c 1000 foo.txt ghigo@venice:/tmp$ ls -l foo.txt

Re: RedHat 7.4 Release Notes: "Btrfs has been deprecated" - wut?

On 2017-08-03 14:08, waxhead wrote: Brendan Hide wrote: The title seems alarmist to me - and I suspect it is going to be misconstrued. :-/ From the release notes at

Re: RedHat 7.4 Release Notes: "Btrfs has been deprecated" - wut?

On 2017-08-03 14:29, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: On Thu, 2017-08-03 at 20:08 +0200, waxhead wrote: Brendan Hide wrote: The title seems alarmist to me - and I suspect it is going to be misconstrued. :-/ From the release notes at

Re: Massive loss of disk space

On 2017-08-03 07:44, Marat Khalili wrote: On 02/08/17 20:52, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: consider the following scenario: a) create a 2GB file b) fallocate -o 1GB -l 2GB c) write from 1GB to 3GB after b), the expectation is that c) always succeed [1]: i.e. there is enough space on the

Re: RedHat 7.4 Release Notes: "Btrfs has been deprecated" - wut?

On 2017-08-15 10:41, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: On Tue, 2017-08-15 at 07:37 -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: Go look at Chrome, or Firefox, or Opera, or any other major web browser. At minimum, they will safely bail out if they detect corruption in the user profile and can trivially

Re: RedHat 7.4 Release Notes: "Btrfs has been deprecated" - wut?

On 2017-08-16 09:31, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: Just out of curiosity: On Wed, 2017-08-16 at 09:12 -0400, Chris Mason wrote: Btrfs couples the crcs with COW because this (which sounds like you want it to stay coupled that way)... plus It's possible to protect against all three

Re: RedHat 7.4 Release Notes: "Btrfs has been deprecated" - wut?

On 2017-08-16 09:12, Chris Mason wrote: My real goal is to make COW fast enough that we can leave it on for the database applications too. Obviously I haven't quite finished that one yet ;) But I'd rather keep the building block of all the other btrfs features in place than try to do crcs

Re: RedHat 7.4 Release Notes: "Btrfs has been deprecated" - wut?

On 2017-08-16 10:11, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: On Wed, 2017-08-16 at 09:53 -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: Go try BTRFS on top of dm-integrity, or on a system with T10-DIF or T13-EPP support When dm-integrity is used... would that be enough for btrfs to do a proper repair in the RAID

Re: RedHat 7.4 Release Notes: "Btrfs has been deprecated" - wut?

On 2017-08-14 15:54, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: On Mon, 2017-08-14 at 11:53 -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: Quite a few applications actually _do_ have some degree of secondary verification or protection from a crash. Go look at almost any database software. Then please give proper

Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] lib: Add zstd modules

On 2017-08-10 07:32, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2017-08-10 04:30, Eric Biggers wrote: On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 07:35:53PM -0700, Nick Terrell wrote: It can compress at speeds approaching lz4, and quality approaching lzma. Well, for a very loose definition of "approaching", and

Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] lib: Add zstd modules

On 2017-08-10 13:24, Eric Biggers wrote: On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 07:32:18AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2017-08-10 04:30, Eric Biggers wrote: On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 07:35:53PM -0700, Nick Terrell wrote: It can compress at speeds approaching lz4, and quality approaching lzma

Re: kernel BUG at /build/linux-H5UzH8/linux-4.10.0/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c:2318

On 2017-08-11 05:57, Piotr Pawłow wrote: Hello, So 4.10 isn't /too/ far out of range yet, but I'd strongly consider upgrading (or downgrading to 4.9 LTS) as soon as it's reasonably convenient, before 4.13 in any case. Unless you prefer to go the distro support route, of course. I used to

Re: [PATCH v5 3/5] btrfs: Add zstd support

On 2017-08-09 22:39, Nick Terrell wrote: Add zstd compression and decompression support to BtrFS. zstd at its fastest level compresses almost as well as zlib, while offering much faster compression and decompression, approaching lzo speeds. I benchmarked btrfs with zstd compression against no

Re: lazytime mount option—no support in Btrfs

On 2017-08-13 07:50, Adam Hunt wrote: Back in 2014 Ted Tso introduced the lazytime mount option for ext4 and shortly thereafter a more generic VFS implementation which was then merged into mainline. His early patches included support for Btrfs but those changes were removed prior to the feature

Re: RedHat 7.4 Release Notes: "Btrfs has been deprecated" - wut?

On 2017-08-14 08:24, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: On Mon, 2017-08-14 at 14:36 +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: And how are you going to write your data and checksum atomically when doing in-place updates? Exactly, that's the main reason I can figure out why btrfs disables checksum for nodatacow.

Re: Building a BTRFS test machine

On 2017-08-13 21:01, Cerem Cem ASLAN wrote: Would that be useful to build a BTRFS test machine, which will perform both software tests (btrfs send | btrfs receive, read/write random data etc.) and hardware tests, such as abrupt power off test, abruptly removing a raid-X disk physically, etc. In

Re: RedHat 7.4 Release Notes: "Btrfs has been deprecated" - wut?

On 2017-08-14 11:13, Graham Cobb wrote: On 14/08/17 15:23, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: Assume you have higher level verification. But almost no applications do. In real life, the decision making/correction process will be manual and labour-intensive (for example, running fsck on a virtual

Re: RedHat 7.4 Release Notes: "Btrfs has been deprecated" - wut?

On 2017-08-17 02:25, GWB wrote: << Or else it could be an argument that they expect Btrfs to do their job while they watch cat videos from the intertubes. :-) My favourite quote from the list this week, and, well, obviously, that is the main selling point of file systems like btrfs, zfs, and

Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] lib: Add zstd modules

On 2017-08-10 04:30, Eric Biggers wrote: On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 07:35:53PM -0700, Nick Terrell wrote: It can compress at speeds approaching lz4, and quality approaching lzma. Well, for a very loose definition of "approaching", and certainly not at the same time. I doubt there's a use case

Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] lib: Add zstd modules

On 2017-08-10 15:25, Hugo Mills wrote: On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 01:41:21PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: On 08/10/2017 04:30 AM, Eric Biggers wrote: Theses benchmarks are misleading because they compress the whole file as a single stream without resetting the dictionary, which isn't how data will

Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] Chunk level degradable check

On 2017-07-12 21:09, Adam Borowski wrote: On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 02:50:10AM +0200, David Sterba wrote: On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 09:11:50PM +0300, Dmitrii Tcvetkov wrote: Tested on top of current mainline master (commit af3c8d98508d37541d4bf57f13a984a7f73a328c). Didn't find any regressions.

Re: btrfs device ready purpose

On 2017-07-07 13:40, Chris Murphy wrote: On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: 07.07.2017 19:42, Chris Murphy пишет: I'm digging through piles of list emails and not really finding an answer to this. Maybe it's Friday and I'm just confused...

Re: Chunk root problem

On 2017-07-10 00:21, Daniel Brady wrote: On 7/7/2017 1:06 AM, Daniel Brady wrote: On 7/6/2017 11:48 PM, Roman Mamedov wrote: On Wed, 5 Jul 2017 22:10:35 -0600 Daniel Brady wrote: parent transid verify failed Typically in Btrfs terms this means "you're screwed", fsck

Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] btrfs: Add zstd support

On 2017-07-07 23:07, Adam Borowski wrote: On Sat, Jul 08, 2017 at 01:40:18AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 11:17:49PM +, Nick Terrell wrote: On 7/6/17, 9:32 AM, "Adam Borowski" wrote: Got a reproducible crash on amd64: Thanks for the bug

Re: raid10 array lost with single disk failure?

On 2017-07-09 22:13, Adam Bahe wrote: I have finished all of the above suggestions, ran a scrub, remounted, rebooted, made sure the system didn't hang, and then kicked off another balance on the entire pool. It completed rather quickly but something still does not seem right. Label:

Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] Add xxhash and zstd modules

On 2017-07-21 07:16, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2017-07-20 17:27, Nick Terrell wrote: Well this is embarrassing, forgot to type anything before hitting send... Hi all, This patch set adds xxhash, zstd compression, and zstd decompression modules. It also adds zstd support to BtrFS

Re: btrfs raid assurance

On 2017-07-25 08:55, Hérikz Nawarro wrote: Hello everyone, I'm migrating to btrfs and i would like to know, in a btrfs filesystem with 4 disks (multiple sizes) with -d raid0 & -m raid1, how many drives can i lost without losing the entire array? Exactly one, but you will lose data if you lose

Re: Best Practice: Add new device to RAID1 pool

On 2017-07-24 07:27, Cloud Admin wrote: Hi, I have a multi-device pool (three discs) as RAID1. Now I want to add a new disc to increase the pool. I followed the description on https://bt rfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Using_Btrfs_with_Multiple_Devices and used 'btrfs add '. After that I called a

Re: Best Practice: Add new device to RAID1 pool

On 2017-07-24 10:12, Cloud Admin wrote: Am Montag, den 24.07.2017, 09:46 -0400 schrieb Austin S. Hemmelgarn: On 2017-07-24 07:27, Cloud Admin wrote: Hi, I have a multi-device pool (three discs) as RAID1. Now I want to add a new disc to increase the pool. I followed the description on https

Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] Add xxhash and zstd modules

On 2017-07-22 07:35, Adam Borowski wrote: On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 11:56:21AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2017-07-20 17:27, Nick Terrell wrote: This patch set adds xxhash, zstd compression, and zstd decompression modules. It also adds zstd support to BtrFS and SquashFS. Each patch

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: Do not use data_alloc_cluster in ssd mode

On 2017-07-24 14:53, Chris Mason wrote: On 07/24/2017 02:41 PM, David Sterba wrote: would it be ok for you to keep ssd_working as before? I'd really like to get this patch merged soon because "do not use ssd mode for ssd" has started to be the recommended workaround. Once this sticks, we

Re: btrfs raid assurance

On 2017-07-25 17:45, Hugo Mills wrote: On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 11:29:13PM +0200, waxhead wrote: Hugo Mills wrote: You can see about the disk usage in different scenarios with the online tool at: http://carfax.org.uk/btrfs-usage/ Hugo. As a side note, have you ever considered

Re: btrfs raid assurance

On 2017-07-26 08:27, Hugo Mills wrote: On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 08:12:19AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2017-07-25 17:45, Hugo Mills wrote: On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 11:29:13PM +0200, waxhead wrote: Hugo Mills wrote: You can see about the disk usage in different scenarios

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: Do not use data_alloc_cluster in ssd mode

On 2017-07-21 19:21, Hans van Kranenburg wrote: > On 07/21/2017 05:50 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: >> On 2017-07-21 07:47, Hans van Kranenburg wrote: >>> [...] >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Hans van Kranenburg <hans.van.kranenb...@mendix.com> >> Beha

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: Do not use data_alloc_cluster in ssd mode

ws things down, I've been forcing '-o nossd' on my systems for a while now for the performance improvement), so you can add: Tested-by: Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> --- fs/btrfs/ctree.h| 4 ++-- fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 6 ++ fs/btrfs/exten

Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] Add xxhash and zstd modules

and had runtime testing running for about 18 hours now with no issues, so you can add: Tested-by: Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> For patch 1, I've only compile tested it, but had no issues and got no warnings about it when booting to test 2-4. For patch 4, I've compile

Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] Add xxhash and zstd modules

On 2017-07-20 17:27, Nick Terrell wrote: Hi all, This patch set adds xxhash, zstd compression, and zstd decompression modules. It also adds zstd support to BtrFS and SquashFS. Each patch has relevant summaries, benchmarks, and tests. Best, Nick Terrell Changelog: v1 -> v2: - Make pointer in

Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] btrfs: Add zstd support

On 2017-06-30 10:21, David Sterba wrote: On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 08:16:20AM -0400, E V wrote: On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Nick Terrell wrote: Add zstd compression and decompression support to BtrFS. zstd at its fastest level compresses almost as well as zlib, while

Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] btrfs: Add zstd support

On 2017-06-30 19:01, Nick Terrell wrote: If we're going to make that configurable, there are some things to consider: * the underlying compressed format -- does not change for different levels This is true for zlib and zstd. lzo in the kernel only supports one compression level. I had

Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] btrfs: Add zstd support

On 2017-07-06 08:09, Lionel Bouton wrote: Le 06/07/2017 à 13:59, Austin S. Hemmelgarn a écrit : On 2017-07-05 20:25, Nick Terrell wrote: On 7/5/17, 12:57 PM, "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: It's the slower compression speed that has me arguing for

Re: Btrfs Compression

On 2017-07-05 23:19, Paul Jones wrote: While reading the thread about adding zstd compression, it occurred to me that there is potentially another thing affecting performance - Compressed extent size. (correct my terminology if it's incorrect). I have two near identical RAID1 filesystems (used

Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] btrfs: Add zstd support

On 2017-07-05 20:25, Nick Terrell wrote: On 7/5/17, 12:57 PM, "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: It's the slower compression speed that has me arguing for the possibility of configurable levels on zlib. 11MB/s is painfully slow considering that most decent

Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] btrfs: Add zstd support

On 2017-07-05 14:18, Adam Borowski wrote: On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 07:43:27AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2017-06-30 19:01, Nick Terrell wrote: There is also the fact of deciding what to use for the default when specified without a level. This is easy for lzo and zlib, where we can

Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] btrfs: Add zstd support

On 2017-07-05 15:35, Nick Terrell wrote: On 7/5/17, 11:45 AM, "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: On 2017-07-05 14:18, Adam Borowski wrote: On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 07:43:27AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2017-06-30 19:01, Nick Terrell wrote: There

Re: Massive loss of disk space

On 2017-08-01 10:47, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2017-08-01 10:39, pwm wrote: Thanks for the links and suggestions. I did try your suggestions but it didn't solve the underlying problem. pwm@europium:~$ sudo btrfs balance start -v -dusage=20 /mnt/snap_04 Dumping filters: flags 0x1, state

Re: Massive loss of disk space

On 2017-08-01 10:39, pwm wrote: Thanks for the links and suggestions. I did try your suggestions but it didn't solve the underlying problem. pwm@europium:~$ sudo btrfs balance start -v -dusage=20 /mnt/snap_04 Dumping filters: flags 0x1, state 0x0, force is off DATA (flags 0x2): balancing,

Re: Massive loss of disk space

for the help. Glad I could be helpful! /Per W On Tue, 1 Aug 2017, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2017-08-01 11:24, pwm wrote: Yes, the test code is as below - trying to match what snapraid tries to do: #include #include #include #include #include #include #include int main() { int fd

Re: Massive loss of disk space

ion, I'd argue that the behavior of BTRFS in this situation is incorrect. /Per W On Tue, 1 Aug 2017, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2017-08-01 10:47, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2017-08-01 10:39, pwm wrote: Thanks for the links and suggestions. I did try your suggestions but it didn't

Odd fallocate behavior on BTRFS.

A recent thread on the BTRFS mailing list [1] brought up some odd behavior in BTRFS that I've long suspected but not had prior reason to test. I've put the fsdevel mailing list on CC since I'm curious to hear what people there think about this. Apparently, if you call fallocate() on a file

Re: [PATCH 00/14 RFC] Btrfs: Add journal for raid5/6 writes

On 2017-08-01 13:25, Roman Mamedov wrote: On Tue, 1 Aug 2017 10:14:23 -0600 Liu Bo wrote: This aims to fix write hole issue on btrfs raid5/6 setup by adding a separate disk as a journal (aka raid5/6 log), so that after unclean shutdown we can make sure data and parity

Re: RedHat 7.4 Release Notes: "Btrfs has been deprecated" - wut?

On 2017-08-02 08:55, Lutz Vieweg wrote: On 08/02/2017 01:25 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: And this is a worst-case result of the fact that most distros added BTRFS support long before it was ready. RedHat still advertises "Ceph", and given Ceph initially recommen

Re: Odd fallocate behavior on BTRFS.

On 2017-08-01 15:07, Holger Hoffstätte wrote: On 08/01/17 20:15, Holger Hoffstätte wrote: On 08/01/17 19:34, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: [..] Apparently, if you call fallocate() on a file with an offset of 0 and a length longer than the length of the file itself, BTRFS will allocate that exact

Re: Massive loss of disk space

On 2017-08-02 17:05, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: On 2017-08-02 21:10, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2017-08-02 13:52, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: Hi, [...] consider the following scenario: a) create a 2GB file b) fallocate -o 1GB -l 2GB c) write from 1GB to 3GB after b), the expectation

Re: RedHat 7.4 Release Notes: "Btrfs has been deprecated" - wut?

On 2017-08-03 16:45, Brendan Hide wrote: On 08/03/2017 09:22 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2017-08-03 14:29, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: On Thu, 2017-08-03 at 20:08 +0200, waxhead wrote: There are no higher-level management tools (e.g. RAID management/monitoring, etc.)... [snip

Re: Massive loss of disk space

On 2017-08-04 10:45, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: On 2017-08-03 19:23, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2017-08-03 12:37, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: On 2017-08-03 13:39, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: [...] Also, as I said below, _THIS WORKS ON ZFS_. That immediately means that a CoW filesystem

Re: finding root filesystem of a subvolume?

On 2017-08-22 09:53, Ulli Horlacher wrote: On Tue 2017-08-22 (09:37), Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: root@fex:~# df -T /local/.backup/home Filesystem Type 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on - -1073740800 104252160 967766336 10% /local/.backup/home Hmm, now I'm

Re: finding root filesystem of a subvolume?

On 2017-08-22 10:43, Peter Grandi wrote: How do I find the root filesystem of a subvolume? Example: root@fex:~# df -T Filesystem Type 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on - -1073740800 104244552 967773976 10% /local/.backup/home [ ... ] I know, the root

Re: finding root filesystem of a subvolume?

On 2017-08-22 10:23, Hugo Mills wrote: On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 10:12:25AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2017-08-22 09:53, Ulli Horlacher wrote: On Tue 2017-08-22 (09:37), Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: root@fex:~# df -T /local/.backup/home Filesystem Type 1K-blocks Used

Re: finding root filesystem of a subvolume?

On 2017-08-22 13:41, Peter Grandi wrote: [ ... ] There is no fixed relationship between the root directory inode of a subvolume and the root directory inode of any other subvolume or the main volume. Actually, there is, because it's inherently rooted in the hierarchy of the volume itself.

Re: [PATCH 0/2] [RFC] Introduce device state 'failed'

lumes.c | 135 + fs/btrfs/volumes.h | 18 +++ 4 files changed, 255 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) All my tests passed, and manual testing shows that it does as advertised, so for the series as a whole you can add: Tested-by: Austin S. He

Re: File system corruption, btrfsck abort

On 2017-05-03 10:17, Christophe de Dinechin wrote: On 29 Apr 2017, at 21:13, Chris Murphy wrote: On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 2:46 AM, Christophe de Dinechin wrote: On 28 Apr 2017, at 22:09, Chris Murphy wrote: On Fri,

Re: Can I see what device was used to mount btrfs?

On 2017-05-03 14:12, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: 03.05.2017 14:26, Austin S. Hemmelgarn пишет: On 2017-05-02 15:50, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: On 2017-05-02 20:49, Adam Borowski wrote: It could be some daemon that waits for btrfs to become complete. Do we have something? Such a daemon would

Re: Qgroup reserved space like in ZFS?

On 2017-05-11 12:17, Robert Mader wrote: Hello everyone, I just wanted to ask a short question as I couldn't find a clear answer anywhere on the net, yet: Is it currently possible to reserve space for a BTRFS subvolume? Currently, there is no way to do this directly right now. However, you

Re: Creating btrfs RAID on LUKS devs makes devices disappear

On 2017-05-11 19:24, Ochi wrote: Hello, here is the journal.log (I hope). It's quite interesting. I rebooted the machine, performed a mkfs.btrfs on dm-{2,3,4} and dm-3 was missing afterwards (around timestamp 66.*). However, I then logged into the machine from another terminal (around timestamp

Re: balancing every night broke balancing so now I can't balance anymore?

On 2017-05-15 04:14, Hugo Mills wrote: On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 04:16:52PM -0700, Marc MERLIN wrote: On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 09:21:11PM +, Hugo Mills wrote: 2) balance -musage=0 3) balance -musage=20 In most cases, this is going to make ENOSPC problems worse, not better. The reason for

Re: Btrfs/SSD

On 2017-05-12 14:27, Kai Krakow wrote: Am Tue, 18 Apr 2017 15:02:42 +0200 schrieb Imran Geriskovan <imran.gerisko...@gmail.com>: On 4/17/17, Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: Regarding BTRFS specifically: * Given my recently newfound understanding of what the

Re: Btrfs/SSD

On 2017-05-12 14:36, Kai Krakow wrote: Am Fri, 12 May 2017 15:02:20 +0200 schrieb Imran Geriskovan : On 5/12/17, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: FWIW, I'm in the market for SSDs ATM, and remembered this from a couple weeks ago so went back to find it. Thanks.

Re: Creating btrfs RAID on LUKS devs makes devices disappear

On 2017-05-12 09:54, Ochi wrote: On 12.05.2017 13:25, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2017-05-11 19:24, Ochi wrote: Hello, here is the journal.log (I hope). It's quite interesting. I rebooted the machine, performed a mkfs.btrfs on dm-{2,3,4} and dm-3 was missing afterwards (around timestamp 66

Re: "Corrected" errors persist after scrubbing

On 2017-05-16 05:53, Tom Hale wrote: Hi Chris, On 09/05/17 02:26, Chris Murphy wrote: Read errors are fixed by overwrites. If the underlying device doesn't report an error for the write command, it's assumed to succeed. Even md and LVM raid's do this. I understand assuming writes succeed in

Re: Btrfs/SSD

On 2017-05-15 15:49, Kai Krakow wrote: Am Mon, 15 May 2017 08:03:48 -0400 schrieb "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" <ahferro...@gmail.com>: That's why I don't trust any of my data to them. But I still want the benefit of their speed. So I use SSDs mostly as frontend caches to HDDs. T

Re: Btrfs/SSD

On 2017-05-16 08:21, Tomasz Torcz wrote: On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 03:58:41AM +0200, Kai Krakow wrote: Am Mon, 15 May 2017 22:05:05 +0200 schrieb Tomasz Torcz : My drive has # smartctl -a /dev/sda | grep LBA 241 Total_LBAs_Written 0x0032 099 099 000Old_age

Re: Exactly what is wrong with RAID5/6

On 2017-06-21 08:43, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: On Wed, 2017-06-21 at 16:45 +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: Btrfs is always using device ID to build up its device mapping. And for any multi-device implementation (LVM,mdadam) it's never a good idea to use device path. Isn't it rather the other

Re: Exactly what is wrong with RAID5/6

On 2017-06-21 13:20, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: 21.06.2017 16:41, Austin S. Hemmelgarn пишет: On 2017-06-21 08:43, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: On Wed, 2017-06-21 at 16:45 +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: Btrfs is always using device ID to build up its device mapping. And for any multi-device

Re: Stability status of btrfs-convert...

On 2017-06-22 05:37, Shyam Prasad N wrote: Hi, I'm planning to use the btrfs-convert tool to convert production data in ext4 filesystem into btrfs. What is the stability status of this feature? As per the below link, this tool is not in frequent use in latest linux kernels.

Re: Exactly what is wrong with RAID5/6

On 2017-06-23 13:25, Michał Sokołowski wrote: Hello group. I am confused: Can somebody please confirm/deny, which RAID subsystem is affected? BTRFS' RAID5/6 or mdadm (Linux kernel raid) RAID 5/6 ? All of the issues mentioned here are specific to BTRFS raid5/raid6 profiles, with the exception

Re: 4.11.1: cannot btrfs check --repair a filesystem, causes heavy memory stalls

On 2017-05-22 22:07, Chris Murphy wrote: On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 5:57 PM, Marc MERLIN wrote: On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 05:26:25PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Marc MERLIN wrote: I already have 24GB of RAM in that machine,

Re: 4.11.1: cannot btrfs check --repair a filesystem, causes heavy memory stalls

On 2017-05-23 14:32, Kai Krakow wrote: Am Tue, 23 May 2017 07:21:33 -0400 schrieb "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" <ahferro...@gmail.com>: On 2017-05-22 22:07, Chris Murphy wrote: On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 5:57 PM, Marc MERLIN <m...@merlins.org> wrote: On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 0

Re: understanding differences in recoverability of raid1 vs raid10 and performance implications of unusual numbers of devices

On 2017-06-01 10:54, Alexander Peganz wrote: Hello, I am trying to understand what differences there are in using btrfs raid1 vs raid10 in terms of recoverability and also performance. This has proven itself to be more difficult than expected since all search results I could come up with

<    5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   >