Re: Quota limit question
Sorry about the late reply!!
On 03/10/2015 04:41 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Original Message
Subject: Re: Quota limit question
From: Christian Robottom Reis k...@canonical.com
To: Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net
Date: 2015年03月07日 05:44
Just as a follow-up, I upgraded btrfs-tools and the kernel again. I
currently have a filesystem which reports 1G exclusive use:
root@riff# btrfs qg show -r -e /var -p -c
qgroupid rfer excl max_rfer max_excl parent
child
--
-
0/261 1.52GiB 1.01GiB0.00B100.00GiB --- ---
It's recommended to sync the btrfs before 'qg show' command, since
quota tree is not updated until commit transaction.
Yes, sync is required be fore qg show now. There is no ioctl to get
qgroup info from kernel space,
so we have to read the data from disk then we have to do a sync before
we getting the correct information.
This filesystem reports over quota, and removing the quota fixes that:
root@riff# touch x
touch: cannot touch ‘x’: Disk quota exceeded
root@riff# btrfs qg limit -e
none 261 /var
root@riff# touch x
root@riff#
So at the moment quotas are pretty much unusable in kernel 3.18.6/tools
3.18.2, at least for my use case, and that's a bit surprising since
there isn't anything very interesting about it (other than it contains a
bunch of lxc-cloned rootfs).
Yes, Btrfs really has some problems, from yours to other annoying
incorrect values.
[Some guess]
For your case, I'm afraid your reserved space in your qgroup takes too
much space, and it's definitely a bug. Maybe some
btrfs_qgroup_reserve() leaking?
Agreed, there must be a reserve leaking in your use case. And I have posted
some patches about qgroup.reserved. some of them is about reserved leaking.
Could you try the tree :
btrfs:https://yangdongsh...@github.com/yangdongsheng/linux.git
qgroup_type
btrfs-progs:https://yangdongsh...@github.com/yangdongsheng/btrfs-progs.git
qgroup_type
It could be working better but I can not guarantee your problem here
will be solved by it.
[Reproducer]
Would you please describe your workload? Or some easy-to-reproduce
scripts?
[Image dump/debug tree]
Another one which may help is your btrfs-debug-tree output on your
quota tree.
You can dump it by btrfs-debug-tree -t 8 DEVICE.
Or full disk metadata dump by btrfs-image -c9 DEVICE
A reproducer is great for investigation. btrfs-debug-tree is important
to us.
Thanx
Yang
Thanks,
Qu
I've proactively added Yang who has submitted a few patches on quota
checking recently just to let me know if he thinks that this should be
fixed with a trunk kernel, or if he'd like to investigate or consider
this further. Thanks!
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 03:52:41AM +, Duncan wrote:
Christian Robottom Reis posted on Tue, 23 Dec 2014 18:36:02 -0200 as
excerpted:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:15:37PM -0200, Christian Robottom Reis
wrote:
# btrfs qgroup limit 2000m 0/261 . touch x touch: cannot
touch
‘x’: Disk quota exceeded
The strange thing is that it doesn't seem to be actually out of
space:
# btrfs qgroup show -p -r -e /var | grep 261
0/261810048 391114752 2097152000 0 ---
Replying to myself as I had not yet been subscribed in time to
receive a
reply; I just upgraded to 3.18.1 and am seeing the same issue on the
same subvolume (and on no others).
Looking at the thread here on gmane.org (list2news and list2web
gateway),
it appears my reply was the only reply in any case, and it was
general as
I don't run quotas myself.
Basically I suggested upgrading, as the quota code as some rather huge
bugs in it (quotas could go seriously negative!) with the old versions
you were running. But you've upgraded at least the kernel now
(userspace
you didn't say).
Here's a link to the thread on the gmane web interface for
completeness,
but the above about covers my reply, as I said the only one until your
thread bump and my reply here, so there's not much new there unless
someone posts further followups to this thread...
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/41491
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman
--
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
.
--
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
Re: Quota limit question
Original Message
Subject: Re: Quota limit question
From: Christian Robottom Reis k...@canonical.com
To: Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net
Date: 2015年03月07日 05:44
Just as a follow-up, I upgraded btrfs-tools and the kernel again. I
currently have a filesystem which reports 1G exclusive use:
root@riff# btrfs qg show -r -e /var -p -c
qgroupid rfer excl max_rfer max_excl parent child
-- -
0/261 1.52GiB 1.01GiB0.00B100.00GiB --- ---
It's recommended to sync the btrfs before 'qg show' command, since quota
tree is not updated until commit transaction.
This filesystem reports over quota, and removing the quota fixes that:
root@riff# touch x
touch: cannot touch ‘x’: Disk quota exceeded
root@riff# btrfs qg limit -e
none 261 /var
root@riff# touch x
root@riff#
So at the moment quotas are pretty much unusable in kernel 3.18.6/tools
3.18.2, at least for my use case, and that's a bit surprising since
there isn't anything very interesting about it (other than it contains a
bunch of lxc-cloned rootfs).
Yes, Btrfs really has some problems, from yours to other annoying
incorrect values.
[Some guess]
For your case, I'm afraid your reserved space in your qgroup takes too
much space, and it's definitely a bug. Maybe some btrfs_qgroup_reserve()
leaking?
[Reproducer]
Would you please describe your workload? Or some easy-to-reproduce scripts?
[Image dump/debug tree]
Another one which may help is your btrfs-debug-tree output on your quota
tree.
You can dump it by btrfs-debug-tree -t 8 DEVICE.
Or full disk metadata dump by btrfs-image -c9 DEVICE
Thanks,
Qu
I've proactively added Yang who has submitted a few patches on quota
checking recently just to let me know if he thinks that this should be
fixed with a trunk kernel, or if he'd like to investigate or consider
this further. Thanks!
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 03:52:41AM +, Duncan wrote:
Christian Robottom Reis posted on Tue, 23 Dec 2014 18:36:02 -0200 as
excerpted:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:15:37PM -0200, Christian Robottom Reis wrote:
# btrfs qgroup limit 2000m 0/261 . touch x touch: cannot touch
‘x’: Disk quota exceeded
The strange thing is that it doesn't seem to be actually out of space:
# btrfs qgroup show -p -r -e /var | grep 261
0/261810048 391114752 2097152000 0 ---
Replying to myself as I had not yet been subscribed in time to receive a
reply; I just upgraded to 3.18.1 and am seeing the same issue on the
same subvolume (and on no others).
Looking at the thread here on gmane.org (list2news and list2web gateway),
it appears my reply was the only reply in any case, and it was general as
I don't run quotas myself.
Basically I suggested upgrading, as the quota code as some rather huge
bugs in it (quotas could go seriously negative!) with the old versions
you were running. But you've upgraded at least the kernel now (userspace
you didn't say).
Here's a link to the thread on the gmane web interface for completeness,
but the above about covers my reply, as I said the only one until your
thread bump and my reply here, so there's not much new there unless
someone posts further followups to this thread...
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/41491
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman
--
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
--
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
Re: Quota limit question
Just as a follow-up, I upgraded btrfs-tools and the kernel again. I
currently have a filesystem which reports 1G exclusive use:
root@riff# btrfs qg show -r -e /var -p -c
qgroupid rfer excl max_rfer max_excl parent child
-- -
0/261 1.52GiB 1.01GiB0.00B100.00GiB --- ---
This filesystem reports over quota, and removing the quota fixes that:
root@riff# touch x
touch: cannot touch ‘x’: Disk quota exceeded
root@riff# btrfs qg limit -e
none 261 /var
root@riff# touch x
root@riff#
So at the moment quotas are pretty much unusable in kernel 3.18.6/tools
3.18.2, at least for my use case, and that's a bit surprising since
there isn't anything very interesting about it (other than it contains a
bunch of lxc-cloned rootfs).
I've proactively added Yang who has submitted a few patches on quota
checking recently just to let me know if he thinks that this should be
fixed with a trunk kernel, or if he'd like to investigate or consider
this further. Thanks!
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 03:52:41AM +, Duncan wrote:
Christian Robottom Reis posted on Tue, 23 Dec 2014 18:36:02 -0200 as
excerpted:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:15:37PM -0200, Christian Robottom Reis wrote:
# btrfs qgroup limit 2000m 0/261 . touch x touch: cannot touch
‘x’: Disk quota exceeded
The strange thing is that it doesn't seem to be actually out of space:
# btrfs qgroup show -p -r -e /var | grep 261
0/261810048 391114752 2097152000 0 ---
Replying to myself as I had not yet been subscribed in time to receive a
reply; I just upgraded to 3.18.1 and am seeing the same issue on the
same subvolume (and on no others).
Looking at the thread here on gmane.org (list2news and list2web gateway),
it appears my reply was the only reply in any case, and it was general as
I don't run quotas myself.
Basically I suggested upgrading, as the quota code as some rather huge
bugs in it (quotas could go seriously negative!) with the old versions
you were running. But you've upgraded at least the kernel now (userspace
you didn't say).
Here's a link to the thread on the gmane web interface for completeness,
but the above about covers my reply, as I said the only one until your
thread bump and my reply here, so there's not much new there unless
someone posts further followups to this thread...
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/41491
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman
--
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
--
Christian Robottom Reis | [+1] 612 888 4935| http://launchpad.net/~kiko
Canonical VP Hyperscale | [+55 16] 9 9112 6430
--
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
Re: Quota limit question
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:15:37PM -0200, Christian Robottom Reis wrote: # btrfs qgroup limit 2000m 0/261 . touch x touch: cannot touch ‘x’: Disk quota exceeded The strange thing is that it doesn't seem to be actually out of space: # btrfs qgroup show -p -r -e /var | grep 261 0/261810048 391114752 2097152000 0 --- Replying to myself as I had not yet been subscribed in time to receive a reply; I just upgraded to 3.18.1 and am seeing the same issue on the same subvolume (and on no others). root@riff:/etc# uname -a Linux riff 3.18.1-031801-generic #201412170637 SMP Wed Dec 17 11:38:50 UTC 2014 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux It's quite odd that this specific subvolume acts up, given that there are quite a few others that are closer to the quota: subvol grouptotal unshared - (unknown) 0/5 1.37G / none 1.16G / none lxc-template1/rootfs0/2590.68G / none 0.10G / 2.00G machine-2/rootfs0/2611.07G / none 0.40G / 2.00G machine-3/rootfs0/2651.17G / none 0.41G / 2.00G lxc-template2/rootfs0/2710.77G / none 0.31G / 2.00G lxc-template3/rootfs0/2740.46G / none 0.02G / 2.00G machine-4/rootfs0/2837.12G / none 6.21G / 10.00G machine-5/rootfs0/2881.05G / none 0.34G / 2.00G machine-6/rootfs0/289 11.33G / none 10.74G / 15.00G machine-7/rootfs0/2901.30G / none 0.68G / 2.00G machine-8/rootfs0/2921.00G / none 0.33G / 2.00G machine-9/rootfs0/2931.17G / none 0.38G / 2.00G machine-10/rootfs 0/3061.34G / none 0.62G / 2.00G machine-11/rootfs 0/3189.49G / none 8.75G / 15.00G lxc-template4/rootfs0/3200.79G / none 0.78G / 2.00G machine-14/rootfs 0/3231.10G / none 0.45G / 2.00G The LWN article suggests that btrfs is quite conservative with quotas, but shouldn't 265, 290, 306, 320 and 323 all be out of quota as well? Or is there a lot else that goes into the calculation beyond the numbers reported by btrfs qgroup show? What could I do to help investigate further? -- Christian Robottom Reis | [+55 16] 3376 0125 | http://async.com.br/~kiko CEO, Async Open Source | [+55 16] 9 9112 6430 | http://launchpad.net/~kiko -- 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
Re: Quota limit question
Christian Robottom Reis posted on Tue, 23 Dec 2014 18:36:02 -0200 as excerpted: On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:15:37PM -0200, Christian Robottom Reis wrote: # btrfs qgroup limit 2000m 0/261 . touch x touch: cannot touch ‘x’: Disk quota exceeded The strange thing is that it doesn't seem to be actually out of space: # btrfs qgroup show -p -r -e /var | grep 261 0/261810048 391114752 2097152000 0 --- Replying to myself as I had not yet been subscribed in time to receive a reply; I just upgraded to 3.18.1 and am seeing the same issue on the same subvolume (and on no others). Looking at the thread here on gmane.org (list2news and list2web gateway), it appears my reply was the only reply in any case, and it was general as I don't run quotas myself. Basically I suggested upgrading, as the quota code as some rather huge bugs in it (quotas could go seriously negative!) with the old versions you were running. But you've upgraded at least the kernel now (userspace you didn't say). Here's a link to the thread on the gmane web interface for completeness, but the above about covers my reply, as I said the only one until your thread bump and my reply here, so there's not much new there unless someone posts further followups to this thread... http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/41491 -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman -- 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
Re: Quota limit question
Christian Robottom Reis posted on Tue, 16 Dec 2014 23:15:37 -0200 as excerpted: # btrfs qgroup limit 2000m 0/261 . touch x touch: cannot touch ‘x’: Disk quota exceeded The strange thing is that it doesn't seem to be actually out of space: # btrfs qgroup show -p -r -e /var | grep 261 0/261810048 391114752 2097152000 0 --- # btrfs --version Btrfs v3.12 # uname -a Linux riff 3.13.0-43-generic #72-Ubuntu SMP Mon Dec 8 19:35:06 UTC 2014 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux Does the problem still exist with a current 3.18 series kernel and 3.17 series btrfs userspace? The quota code in the versions you appear to be running had some (rather severe, quotes could go negative at times!) known bugs and was rewritten recently. I don't use quotas here and don't know for sure whether the quota rewrite made it into kernel 3.17, but current 3.18 should have it, and current userspace is I believe 3.17.3, so you should consider upgrading it as well. More in general, consider your use-case. While btrfs is no longer the experimental filesystem it once was (tho the warnings weren't removed until after the old 3.12/3.13 you're running, AFAIK), it's still maturing, and running year-old code still means running code with bugs that are known and have been fixed for a year. There's a place for being conservative and running old and known stable code, but btrfs is still young and maturing and doesn't match that use-case very well. Either you need stable and mature and an equally stable and mature filesystem is a better fit, at least for a couple more years, or you want newer technology/code and running year-old stuff is behind the curve. Either way, running year-old btrfs code, both kernel and userspace, doesn't make a lot of sense. Perhaps in a couple years it will, after btrfs is more mature and stable and year-old code doesn't mean year-stale bugs, but not currently. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman -- 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
