On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 01:48:18PM +0100, Holger Hoffstätte wrote: > On 03/14/16 13:07, Marc Haber wrote: > >> And btrfs balance runs into the same ENOSPC issues as the old one: > > > > ... with Qu's patch, I now get a reproducible kernel trace: > > <snip> > > That is interesting and useful. Sorry if this was asked before, but > did you ever try to clear the free-space cache via -o clear_cache > on mount?
This was not asked, and I didn't try. Since this is an encrypted root filesystem, is it a workable way to add clear_cache to /etc/fstab, rebuild initramfs and reboot? Or do you recommend using a rescue system? > Give it a try, let it run for a while and then try balancing > again. Do I need to wait for clear_cache to finish, like until I see disk usage dropping? > Uncle Occam's razor also suggests that the involvement of dm > doesn't help. Why not just use the device/partition directly? I need the dm intermediate since I don't want to repartition the expensive SSD and the entire system is crypted. > _Someone_ is lying to btrfs in terms of device size and/or allocated > chunks, otherwise you wouldn't get the ENOSPC. Which properties does a block device report other than size? Greetings Marc -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Leimen, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 6224 1600402 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 6224 1600421 -- 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
