Donald Pearson posted on Sat, 25 Jul 2015 08:27:03 -0500 as excerpted:
[Duncan wrote...]
Also, FWIW, the btrfs quota subsystem increases snapshot management
complexity dramatically, so if you're using that, aim for the low
ends of the above recommendation if at all possible, and/or consider
I can confirm that getting rid of the quotas fixed the issue for me.
Just disabling quotas wasn't enough, I had to enable, delete all
qgroups, reboot because disable was hung on one of the filesystems,
then disable quotas. Now when btrfs-cleaner runs it doesn't
completely consume a core, I can
Thanks for the feedback Duncan.
It doesn't appear to be a big deal to disable quotas so that's what
I'll do for now.
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 4:29 AM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Donald Pearson posted on Mon, 20 Jul 2015 08:33:47 -0500 as excerpted:
Also, FWIW, the btrfs quota subsystem
Donald Pearson posted on Mon, 20 Jul 2015 08:33:47 -0500 as excerpted:
Also, FWIW, the btrfs quota subsystem increases snapshot management
complexity dramatically, so if you're using that, aim for the low ends
of the above recommendation if at all possible, and/or consider either
turning off
Donald Pearson posted on Mon, 20 Jul 2015 00:15:26 -0500 as excerpted:
I'm starting to think there's something wrong with creating and removing
snapshots that leaves btrfs-cleaner either locked up or nearly so. If
the btrfs-cleaner process was hard-disk limited I should be seeing some
HDD
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 3:28 AM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Donald Pearson posted on Mon, 20 Jul 2015 00:15:26 -0500 as excerpted:
I'm starting to think there's something wrong with creating and removing
snapshots that leaves btrfs-cleaner either locked up or nearly so. If
the
I'm starting to think there's something wrong with creating and
removing snapshots that leaves btrfs-cleaner either locked up or
nearly so. If the btrfs-cleaner process was hard-disk limited I
should be seeing some HDD I/O to coincide but I don't.
So far btrfs-cleaner is has been using lots of
Marc MERLIN wrote (ao):
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 10:03:16AM +1000, Paul Harvey wrote:
The way it works in snazzer (and btrbk and I think also btrfs-sxbackup
as well), local snapshots continue to happen as normal (Eg. daily or
hourly) and so when your backup media or backup server is finally
BTW, is anybody else experiencing btrfs-cleaner consuming heavy
resources for a very long time when snapshots are removed?
Note the TIME on one of these btrfs-cleaner processes.
top - 13:01:15 up 21:09, 2 users, load average: 5.30, 4.80, 3.83
Tasks: 315 total, 3 running, 312 sleeping, 0
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 09:42:28AM -0500, Donald Pearson wrote:
Implementation question about your scripts Marc..
make sure you Cc me then, I could have missed that Email :)
I've set up some routines for different backup and retention intervals
and periods in cron but quickly ran in to
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 01:02:29PM -0500, Donald Pearson wrote:
BTW, is anybody else experiencing btrfs-cleaner consuming heavy
resources for a very long time when snapshots are removed?
Yes, that's normal. It spends a long time to reclaim blocks and free
them, especially if they are on a hard
Implementation question about your scripts Marc..
I've set up some routines for different backup and retention intervals
and periods in cron but quickly ran in to stepping on my own toes by
the locking mechanism. I could just disable the locking but I'm not
sure if that's the best approach and I
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 10:03:16AM +1000, Paul Harvey wrote:
The way it works in snazzer (and btrbk and I think also btrfs-sxbackup
as well), local snapshots continue to happen as normal (Eg. daily or
hourly) and so when your backup media or backup server is finally
available again, the size
The way it works in snazzer (and btrbk and I think also btrfs-sxbackup
as well), local snapshots continue to happen as normal (Eg. daily or
hourly) and so when your backup media or backup server is finally
available again, the size of each individual incremental is still the
same as usual, it just
On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 08:55:23PM -0700, Marc MERLIN wrote:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 12:46:24PM +0200, Axel Burri wrote:
On 2015-07-09 14:26, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
Well I may try it for one of my BTRFS volumes in addition to the rsync
backup for now. I would like to give all
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 12:46:24PM +0200, Axel Burri wrote:
On 2015-07-09 14:26, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
Well I may try it for one of my BTRFS volumes in addition to the rsync
backup for now. I would like to give all options on command line, but well,
maybe it can completely replace
On 2015-07-09 14:26, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
Well I may try it for one of my BTRFS volumes in addition to the rsync
backup for now. I would like to give all options on command line, but well,
maybe it can completely replace my current script if I put everything in its
configuration.
One
On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 02:26:55PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
Hi!
I see Alex, the developer of btrbk posted here once about btrfs send and
receive, but well any other users of btrbk¹? What are your experiences?
I consider switching to it from my home grown rsync based backup script
On Thursday 09 July 2015 14:26:55 you wrote:
Well I may try it for one of my BTRFS volumes in addition to the rsync
backup for now. I would like to give all options on command line, but well,
maybe it can completely replace my current script if I put everything in its
configuration.
Any
Marc,
I thought I'd yours a try, and I'm probably embarassing myself here
but I'm running in to this issue. Centos 7.
[root@san01 tank]# ./btrfs-subvolume-backup store /mnt2/backups
./btrfs-subvolume-backup: line 177: shlock: command not found
/var/run/btrfs-subvolume-backup held for
... and I just found your other block about stealing shlock out of inn.
Officially embarassed!
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Donald Pearson
donaldwhpear...@gmail.com wrote:
Marc,
I thought I'd yours a try, and I'm probably embarassing myself here
but I'm running in to this issue. Centos
In my research, I've found btrbk and btrfs-sxbackup certainly to be
the leading contenders in terms of feature completeness. sanoid [1]
will be another interesting possibility once btrfs compatibility is
added (currently zfs only).
I just wish I'd discovered all these before I went to all the
22 matches
Mail list logo
