Re: Power down tests...

Hi Chris, Good points that you make. We're making use of btrfs raid only. (One of the reasons we want to move to btrfs) However, during this test, we haven't run with multi-disk btrfs raid. We just have one disk. (This test setup doesn't have too many disks) We do have our metadata replicated as

Re: Power down tests...

Hi Chris, Thanks for the detailed reply. :) Read my answers inline: On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 7:45 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: > > This is astronomically more complicated than the already complicated > scenario with one file system on a single normal partition of a well >

Re: Power down tests...

On Sun, Aug 06, 2017 at 08:15:45PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:51 PM, Shyam Prasad N > wrote: > > We're running a couple of experiments on our servers with btrfs > > (kernel version 4.4). > > And we're running some abrupt power-off tests for a

Re: Power down tests...

On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 6:09 AM, Shyam Prasad N wrote: > Thanks guys. I've enabled that option now. Let's see how it goes. > One general question regarding the stability of btrfs in kernel > version 4.4. Is this okay for power off test cases? Or are there many > important

Re: Power down tests...

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:51 PM, Shyam Prasad N wrote: > Hi all, > > We're running a couple of experiments on our servers with btrfs > (kernel version 4.4). > And we're running some abrupt power-off tests for a couple of scenarios: > > 1. We have a filesystem on top of two

Re: Power down tests...

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:51 PM, Shyam Prasad N wrote: > Hi all, > > We're running a couple of experiments on our servers with btrfs > (kernel version 4.4). > And we're running some abrupt power-off tests for a couple of scenarios: > > 1. We have a filesystem on top of two

Re: Power down tests...

Thanks guys. I've enabled that option now. Let's see how it goes. One general question regarding the stability of btrfs in kernel version 4.4. Is this okay for power off test cases? Or are there many important fixes in newer kernels? On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Dmitrii Tcvetkov

Re: Power down tests...

Oh ok. I read this in the man page and assumed that it's on by default: flushoncommit, noflushoncommit (default: on) This option forces any data dirtied by a write in a prior transaction to commit as part of the current commit. This makes the committed state a fully

Re: Power down tests...

On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 12:15:12PM +0530, Shyam Prasad N wrote: > Is flushoncommit not a default option on version > 4.4? Do I need specifically set this option? It's not the default. -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ What Would Jesus Do, MUD/MMORPG edition: ⣾⠁⢰⠒⠀⣿⡁ • multiplay with an admin char to benefit your

Re: Power down tests...

On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 11:21:15AM +0530, Shyam Prasad N wrote: > We're running a couple of experiments on our servers with btrfs > (kernel version 4.4). > And we're running some abrupt power-off tests for a couple of scenarios: > > 1. We have a filesystem on top of two different btrfs

Power down tests...

Hi all, We're running a couple of experiments on our servers with btrfs (kernel version 4.4). And we're running some abrupt power-off tests for a couple of scenarios: 1. We have a filesystem on top of two different btrfs filesystems (distributed across N disks). i.e. Our filesystem lays out data