On 01/18/2011 01:54 AM, Yan, Zheng wrote: > On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:14 PM, Erik Logtenberg <e...@logtenberg.eu> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> btrfs balance results in: >> >> http://pastebin.com/v5j0809M >> >> My system: fully up-to-date Fedora 14 with rawhide kernel to make btrfs >> balance do useful stuff to my free space: >> >> kernel-2.6.37-2.fc15.x86_64 >> btrfs-progs-0.19-12.fc14.x86_64 >> >> Filesystem had 0 bytes free, should be 45G, so on darklings advice I ran >> btrfs balance on the fs, while doing heavy I/O (re-running 5 backup jobs >> that had failed due to ENOSP). >> Up until the crash, btrfs balance did retrieve a couple of Gigs free >> space though, so that part of the plan worked just fine. >> > > Please try 2.6.36 kernel.
Thanks for your (short) advice. Could you please elaborate. I was in fact using a 2.6.35.10-74.fc14.x86_64 kernel before, but darkling adviced me to switch to a newer kernel to reclaim free space by balancing -- the idea was that newer kernels have better balancing implementation, more effective at reclaiming free space. Now your advice is to take a small step back again, from 2.6.37 to 2.6.36 (which is still higher than the 2.6.35 I was using before). Is that because you think that 2.6.37 may have introduced the bug that I ran into? Do you think that 2.6.36 is still recent enough to have the effective balancing so that I will in fact be able to reclaim some free space? Or is is just a shot in the dark with no reasoning whatsoever ;) Please don't feel offended, but from your 4-word sentence I really can't tell. Thanks, Erik. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
