On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Erik Logtenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > On 01/18/2011 01:54 AM, Yan, Zheng wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:14 PM, Erik Logtenberg <[email protected]> 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. >
Just try narrowing down the bug, because I never saw bug like this before. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
