On 12/19/2017 06:46 AM, Tomasz Pala wrote:
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 07:25:49 -0500, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
Well, the RAID1+ is all about the failing hardware.
About catastrophically failing hardware, not intermittent failure.
It shouldn't matter - as long as disk failing once is kicked ou
After adding a new drive to a btrfs raid1 array I cannot remount it.
One thing that went wrong for me after having successfully done this
many times before over the last five years is that in this case I failed
to format the partition as btrfs and just left it unformatted assuming
the btrfs co
I just subscribed to this list so in case this subject has already been
discussed at length, my apologies. I have been waiting for btrfs
forever. I have been waiting for it to become reasonably stable. In
the wake of escalating problems with my old hardware RAID setup, I
decided now was the
On 05/04/2013 06:21 PM, Kai Krakow wrote:
George Mitchell schrieb:
1) The system fails to boot intermittently due to dracut/initrd issues
(btrfs: open_ctree failed). This is being worked on upstream and I am
seeing a continual flow of patches addressing it, but so far no fix.
This will take
On 05/05/2013 02:22 AM, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
Hi George!
Am Samstag, 4. Mai 2013, 11:39:59 schrieb George Mitchell:
the next update. I am using btrfs raid 1 across five 500GB Seagate
nearline drives and btrfs single on a Seagate 4TB backup drive. I am
absolutely delighted with how this
On 05/08/2013 12:31 AM, Kai Krakow wrote:
Helmut Hullen schrieb:
If I want to manage a complete disk with btrfs, what's the "Best
Practice"? Would it be best to create the btrfs filesystem on
"/dev/sdb", or would it be better to create just one partition from
start to end and then do "mkfs.btr
One the things that is frustrating me the most at this point from a user
perspective regarding btrfs is the current lack of virtual devices to
describe volumes and subvolumes. The current method of simply using a
random member device or a LABEL or a UUID is just not working well for
me. Havin
just
write it off.
- George
On 05/19/2013 04:04 AM, Martin wrote:
On 10/05/13 15:03, George Mitchell wrote:
One the things that is frustrating me the most at this point from a user
perspective ... The current method of simply using a
random member device or a LABEL or a UUID is just not
Duncan, The problem affects btrfs volumes that span multiple drive. If
you are using btrfs on a single drive that works just fine. But in a
multidrive situation, sometimes it works (when umount guesses the right
device name) and sometimes it fails (when umount guesses the wrong
device name).
On 05/20/2013 08:59 PM, Duncan wrote:
Then I ran into hardware issues that turned out to be bad caps on my
8- year-old mobo (tho it was dual-socket first-gen opteron, which I
had upgraded to top-of-its-line dual-core Opteron 290s, thus four
cores @ 2.8 GHz, with 8 gigs RAM, so it wasn't as perf
he
way zfs works as this would allow some fun magic to happen outside of
util-linux.
In any case, I hope my thoughts are at least a little useful. Cheers!
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 7:49 AM, George Mitchell <mailto:geo...@chinilu.com>> wrote:
In reply to both of these comments in
On 05/23/2013 09:08 AM, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
3) As to my knowledge mount times of large partitions can be quite
long with ReiserFS 3.
That may well be, but I certainly wouldn't consider btrfs mount times
"fast" in such cases.
[root@localhost ghmitch]# time mount LABEL=BACKUP /backup
re
I have gotten what appear to be large increases in speed out of btrfs by
defragmentation of meta data. The manual defragmentation process takes
forever as you have to defragment incrementally directory by directory.
I was at the point where KDE startup times were getting abysmal (along
with jo
I am seeing massive journal corruptions that seem to be unique to btrfs
and I am suspecting that cow might be causing them. My bandaid fix for
this will be to mark the /var filesystem "nodatacow" at boot. But I am
wondering if their is any way to flag a particular directory as
"nodatacow" out
I am seeing a huge improvement in boot performance since doing a system
wide file by file defragementation of metadata. In fact in the four
sequential boots since completing this process, I have not seen one
open_ctree failure so far. This leads me to suspect that the open_ctree
boot failures
On 06/02/2013 06:28 PM, Liu Bo wrote:
On Sun, Jun 02, 2013 at 07:40:52AM -0700, George Mitchell wrote:
I am seeing massive journal corruptions that seem to be unique to
btrfs and I am suspecting that cow might be causing them. My
bandaid fix for this will be to mark the /var filesystem
On 06/02/2013 06:28 PM, Liu Bo wrote:
On Sun, Jun 02, 2013 at 07:40:52AM -0700, George Mitchell wrote:
I am seeing massive journal corruptions that seem to be unique to
btrfs and I am suspecting that cow might be causing them. My
bandaid fix for this will be to mark the /var filesystem
On 06/02/2013 07:58 PM, Liu Bo wrote:
On Sun, Jun 02, 2013 at 07:11:10PM -0700, George Mitchell wrote:
On 06/02/2013 06:28 PM, Liu Bo wrote:
On Sun, Jun 02, 2013 at 07:40:52AM -0700, George Mitchell wrote:
I am seeing massive journal corruptions that seem to be unique to
btrfs and I am
On 06/06/2013 01:58 PM, Kai Krakow wrote:
George Mitchell schrieb:
I am seeing a huge improvement in boot performance since doing a system
wide file by file defragementation of metadata. In fact in the four
sequential boots since completing this process, I have not seen one
open_ctree
I want to eliminate the COW feature on all of my OS files. It is a nice
feature for user files, but I don't see a clear benefit for the actual
OS files. And I suspect that COW induced fragmentation is causing or
aggravating problems with my system including the boot open_ctree
problem. I had
pstream.
Thanks so much for taking the time to respond to my question. It is
MUCH appreciated. - George
On 06/07/2013 04:52 AM, David Sterba wrote:
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 07:51:28PM -0700, George Mitchell wrote:
I want to eliminate the COW feature on all of my OS files. It is a nice
feat
eb "George Mitchell" <mailto:geo...@chinilu.com>>:
On 06/06/2013 01:58 PM, Kai Krakow wrote:
George Mitchell mailto:geo...@chinilu.com>> schrieb:
I am seeing a huge improvement in boot performance since
doing a system
wide file b
akow wrote:
Actually it should be called "rootdelay"... My fault...
Am 07.06.2013 01:48 schrieb "George Mitchell" <mailto:geo...@chinilu.com>>:
On 06/06/2013 01:58 PM, Kai Krakow wrote:
George Mitchell mailto:geo...@chinilu.com>> schrieb:
On 06/28/2013 09:25 AM, Martin wrote:
On 28/06/13 16:39, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 11:34:18AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 02:59:45PM +0100, Martin wrote:
On kernel 3.8.13:
Using two equal performance SATAII HDDs, formatted for btrfs
raid1 for both data an
Hello Adam, I routinely defrag my filesystems and here is how I do it:
find /home -type d -mtime -3 -o -type f -mtime -3 | egrep -v
"Cache|cache" | while read file; do /usr/sbin/btrfs filesystem defrag -f
-v "${file}"; done
The above is what I use to defrag my data (non-OS) files. I use a w
e. Thanks for pointing this out.
On 07/18/2013 12:12 AM, Adam Ryczkowski wrote:
On 07/18/2013 02:17 AM, George Mitchell wrote:
find /home -type d -mtime -3 -o -type f -mtime -3 | egrep -v
"Cache|cache" | while read file; do /usr/sbin/btrfs filesystem defrag
-f -v "${file}"; d
Sounds to me like a fragmentation issue.
On 07/20/2013 08:15 AM, Jason Russell wrote:
Hi,
I've been using btrfs for my root partition for about a month on
archlinux and recently Ive started using the i3 window manager and
starting X manually and I now boot to run level 3 (multi-user.target
for
On 07/21/2013 03:01 PM, Duncan wrote:
Chris Murphy posted on Sun, 21 Jul 2013 10:20:48 -0600 as excerpted:
On Jul 21, 2013, at 4:38 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
What I'd suggest is to turn on the btrfs autodefrag mount option, and
to do it *BEFORE* you start installing stuff on the
On 07/21/2013 08:37 PM, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
On Sunday, July 21, 2013 04:44:09 PM George Mitchell wrote:
Unless auto-defrag can work around the
in-use file issue, that could be a problem since some heavily used
system files are open virtually all the time the system is up and
running
Two years ago I installed btrfs across 8 hard drives on my desktop
system with the entire system ending up on btrfs RAID 1. I did all of
this with btrfs-progs-0.20. Since that time I have been dreading
updating my system because of fear that the old btrfs volumes would
become unstable in the
This is just a comment from someone following all of this from the
sidelines.
And that is that I see so much going on here with this procedure that is
scares me. Once a single operation reaches a certain degree of
complexity I get really scared because all it takes is a single misstep
and my
The read only mount issue is by design. It is intended to make sure you
know exactly what is going on before you proceed. For example, a drive
may actually be fine, but may have been caused by a cable failure. In
that case you would want to fix the cable problem before you break the
mirror b
On 11/14/2013 09:35 AM, Lutz Vieweg wrote:
On 11/14/2013 06:18 PM, George Mitchell wrote:
The read only mount issue is by design. It is intended to make sure
you know exactly what is going
on before you proceed.
Hmmm... but will a server be able to continue its operation (including
writes
On 12/14/2013 04:28 PM, Hans-Kristian Bakke wrote:
I would normally expect that there is no difference in 1TB free space
on a FS that is 2TB in total, and 1TB free space on a filesystem that
is 30TB in total, other than my sense of urge and that you would
probably expect data growth to be more r
A lot of good comments on this topic already. I would just add that on
large (TB) drives, not partitioning can result in some pretty slow mount
and umount times (even applies to mounting subvolumes). That is one of
the frustrating side effects I have noticed with a non-partitioned 4TB
drive o
On 06/19/2014 02:50 PM, Tamas Papp wrote:
On 06/16/2014 04:02 PM, Tamas Papp wrote:
On 06/16/2014 03:26 PM, Tamas Papp wrote:
hi All,
There is a Dell XPS 13 laptop with and SSD.
System:
Ubuntu 14.04 amd64
Kernel is from the daily ppa, like 3.15rcX.
Now, it's running live system:
Linux ub
On 06/22/2014 12:49 AM, Imran Geriskovan wrote:
The 64KB Btrfs bootloader pad is 8 sector aligned, so for 512e AF disks
there's no problem formatting the whole drive. The alignment problem
actually happens when partitioning it, using old partition tools that don't
align on 8 sector boundaries. Th
On 06/22/2014 07:11 AM, Roman Mamedov wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2014 06:44:13 -0700
George Mitchell wrote:
On 06/22/2014 12:49 AM, Imran Geriskovan wrote:
The 64KB Btrfs bootloader pad is 8 sector aligned, so for 512e AF disks
there's no problem formatting the whole drive. The alignment pr
On 06/22/2014 07:11 AM, Roman Mamedov wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2014 06:44:13 -0700
George Mitchell wrote:
On 06/22/2014 12:49 AM, Imran Geriskovan wrote:
The 64KB Btrfs bootloader pad is 8 sector aligned, so for 512e AF disks
there's no problem formatting the whole drive. The alignment pr
On 07/20/2014 02:28 PM, Bob Marley wrote:
On 20/07/2014 21:36, Roman Mamedov wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jul 2014 21:15:31 +0200
Bob Marley wrote:
Hi TM, are you doing other significant filesystem activity during this
rebuild, especially random accesses?
This can reduce performances a lot on HDDs.
E.g.
On 08/03/2014 08:31 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
On Mon, 4 Aug 2014 04:02:53 Peter Roberts wrote:
I've just recently started testing btrfs on my server but after just 24
hours problems have started. I get booted to a busybox prompt user
ubuntu 14.04. I have a multi device FS setup and I can't say fo
On 08/03/2014 09:14 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
On Sun, 3 Aug 2014 21:00:19 George Mitchell wrote:
But just changing your boot configuration to use /dev/sdx is probably the
best option.
Assuming you are booting with grub2, you will need to use /dev/sdx in
the grub2 configuration file. This is
On 08/03/2014 09:14 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
On Sun, 3 Aug 2014 21:00:19 George Mitchell wrote:
But just changing your boot configuration to use /dev/sdx is probably the
best option.
Assuming you are booting with grub2, you will need to use /dev/sdx in
the grub2 configuration file. This is
I really suspect a lot of bad block issues can be avoided by monitoring
SMART data. SMART is working very well for me with btrfs formatted
drives. SMART will detect when sectors silently fail and as those
failures accumulate, SMART will warn in an obvious way that the drive in
question is at
Hello Clemens,
On 01/09/2014 04:08 PM, Clemens Eisserer wrote:
Hi George,
I really suspect a lot of bad block issues can be avoided by monitoring
SMART data. SMART is working very well for me with btrfs formatted drives.
SMART will detect when sectors silently fail and as those failures
accum
On 01/09/2014 05:06 PM, Jim Salter wrote:
On Jan 9, 2014 7:46 PM, George Mitchell wrote:
I would prefer that the drive, even flash media type, would
catch and resolve write failures. If it doesn't happen at the hardware
layer, according to how I understand Hugo's answer, btrfs, at
On 01/10/2014 07:27 AM, Duncan wrote:
George Eleftheriou posted on Thu, 09 Jan 2014 17:49:48 +0100 as excerpted:
I'm really looking forward to the day that typing:
mkfs.btrfs -d raid10 -m raid10 /dev/sd[abcd]
will do exactly what is expected to do. A true RAID10 resilient in 2
disks' failure
On 01/14/2014 11:13 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Jan 9, 2014, at 6:31 PM, George Mitchell wrote:
Jim, my point was that IF the drive does not successfully resolve the bad block
issue and btrfs takes a write failure every time it attempts to overwrite the
bad data, it is not going to remap that
On 01/14/2014 01:00 PM, Roman Mamedov wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 12:29:28 -0800
George Mitchell wrote:
what we are lacking at this point is a SMART capability to provide
visual notifications to the user when any hard drive starts to seriously
degrade or suddenly fails.
You can configure
On 01/14/2014 01:00 PM, Roman Mamedov wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 12:29:28 -0800
George Mitchell wrote:
what we are lacking at this point is a SMART capability to provide
visual notifications to the user when any hard drive starts to seriously
degrade or suddenly fails.
You can configure
On 01/14/2014 01:14 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Jan 14, 2014, at 1:29 PM, George Mitchell wrote:
And the key to monitoring hard drive health, in my opinion, is SMART and what
we are lacking at this point is a SMART capability to provide visual
notifications to the user when any hard drive
On 01/14/2014 01:14 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Jan 14, 2014, at 1:29 PM, George Mitchell wrote:
And the key to monitoring hard drive health, in my opinion, is SMART and what
we are lacking at this point is a SMART capability to provide visual
notifications to the user when any hard drive
On 01/14/2014 01:14 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
And the key to monitoring hard drive health, in my opinion, is SMART and what
we are lacking at this point is a SMART capability to provide visual
notifications to the user when any hard drive starts to seriously degrade or
suddenly fails.
Gnome d
On 01/17/2014 04:23 PM, Ian Hinder wrote:
Hi,
I have been reading a lot of articles online about the dangers of using ZFS with non-ECC
RAM. Specifically, the fact that when good data is read from disk and compared with its
checksum, a RAM error can cause the read data to be incorrect, causing
Just my opinion, of course, but I simply cannot imagine how "an
incorrect checksum could appear correct due to a memory error". Sorry,
but I just cannot get my brain around that one. The odds against it
happening would be beyond comprehension. I can easily imagine btrfs
taking a system down d
After reading the recent posts on this topic I am beginning to think
there is some real confusion between "check sums" and "parity". These
are two different things which serve two different purposes. In each
case, bad RAM would have different repercussions. But I still fail to
see how, in the
On 03/13/2014 04:03 PM, Michael Schuerig wrote:
On Thursday 13 March 2014 16:04:33 Chris Murphy wrote:
On Mar 13, 2014, at 3:14 PM, Michael Schuerig
wrote:
On Thursday 13 March 2014 14:48:55 Andrew Skretvedt wrote:
On 2014-Mar-13 14:28, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 08:12:44PM +
Actually, an interesting concept would be to have the initial two drive
RAID 1 mirrored by 2 additional drives in 4-way configuration on a
second machine at a remote location on a private high speed network with
both machines up 24/7. In that case, if such a configuration would
work, either ma
is n-way mirroring to get me out of the simplex trap
completely. At that point, I can have more confidence in btrfs snapshop
capability.
On 03/15/2014 04:35 AM, Michael Schuerig wrote:
On Thursday 13 March 2014 17:29:11 George Mitchell wrote:
I currently use rsync to a separate drive to mai
I am seeming to have an issue with a specific application. I just
installed "Recoll", a really nice desktop search tool. And the
following day whenever my backup program would attempt to run, my
computer simply stopped dead in its tracks and I was forced to do a hard
reboot to get it back. S
On 04/07/2014 05:42 AM, Duncan wrote:
George Mitchell posted on Sun, 06 Apr 2014 22:25:03 -0700 as excerpted:
I am seeming to have an issue with a specific application. I just
installed "Recoll", a really nice desktop search tool. And the
following day whenever my backup pro
Well, Akonadi brought my system to its knees long before I converted to
btrfs, so somehow I am not surprised. I have kept akonadi disabled ever
since.for everything except a portion of Thunderbird and that ONLY with
sql-lite. Mysql will kill it in no time. So I am not sure that btrfs is
the r
62 matches
Mail list logo
