Re: defragmenting best practice?

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 05:47:54PM -0400, Dave wrote: > I'm following up on all the suggestions regarding Firefox performance > on BTRFS. > > > > 5. Firefox profile sync has not worked well for us in the past, so we > don't use it. > 6. Our machines generally have plenty of RAM so we could put

Re: defragmenting best practice?

On September 19, 2017 11:38:13 PM PDT, Dave wrote: >>On Thu 2017-08-31 (09:05), Ulli Horlacher wrote: > >Here's my scenario. Some months ago I built an over-the-top powerful >desktop computer / workstation and I was looking forward to really >fantastic performance

Re: BTRFS converted from EXT4 becomes read-only after reboot

On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 12:41:11PM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > Send/receive is not likely to transfer the problem unless it has something > to do with how things are reflinked. Receive operates by recreating the > sent subvolume from userspace using regular commands and the clone ioctls,

Re: BTRFS converted from EXT4 becomes read-only after reboot

On May 8, 2017 11:28:42 AM EDT, Sanidhya Solanki wrote: >On Mon, 8 May 2017 10:16:44 -0400 >Alexandru Guzu wrote: > >> Sean, how would you approach the copy of the data back and forth if >> the OS is on it? Would a Send-receive and then back work? > >You

Re: BTRFS converted from EXT4 becomes read-only after reboot

On May 3, 2017 4:28:11 PM EDT, Alexandru Guzu wrote: >Hi all, > >In a VirtualBox VM, I converted a EXT4 fs to BTRFS that is now running >on Ubuntu 16.04 (Kernel 4.4.0-72). I was able to use the system for >several weeks. I even did kernel updates, compression, deduplication

Re: Is btrfs-convert able to deal with sparse files in a ext4 filesystem?

On Sat, Apr 01, 2017 at 11:48:50AM +0200, Kai Herlemann wrote: > Hi, > I have on my ext4 filesystem some sparse files, mostly images from > ext4 filesystems. > Is btrfs-convert (4.9.1) able to deal with sparse files or can that > cause any problems? >From personal experience, I would recommend

Re: Cross-subvolume rename behavior

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 07:23:40AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > On 2017-03-23 06:09, Hugo Mills wrote: > >Direct rename (using rename(2)) isn't possible across subvols, > > which is what the EXDEV result indicates. The solution is exactly what > > mv does, which is reflink-and-delete

Cross-subvolume rename behavior

Hello, all. I'm currently tracking down the source of some strange behavior in my setup. I recognize that this isn't strictly a btrfs issue, but I figured I'd start at the bottom of the stack and work my way up. I have a server with a btrfs filesystem on it that I remotely access on several

Re: Incremental send robustness question

On October 14, 2016 12:43:03 AM EDT, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: >I see the specific questions have been answered, and alternatives >explored in one direction, but I've another alternative, in a different > >direction, to suggest. > >First a disclaimer. I'm a btrfs user/sysadmin and

Re: Incremental send robustness question

On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 01:14:51AM +0200, Hans van Kranenburg wrote: > On 10/13/2016 12:29 AM, Sean Greenslade wrote: > > Hi, all. I have a question about a backup plan I have involving > > send/receive. As far as I can tell, there's no way to to resume a send > > that

Incremental send robustness question

Hi, all. I have a question about a backup plan I have involving send/receive. As far as I can tell, there's no way to to resume a send that has been interrupted. In this case, my interruption comes from an overbearing firewall that doesn't like long-lived connections. I'm trying to do the initial

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 12:08:55AM -0400, Zygo Blaxell wrote: > > At the end of the day I'm not sure fsck really matters. If the filesystem > is getting corrupted enough that both copies of metadata are broken, > there's something fundamentally wrong with that setup (hardware bugs, > software

Re: Post ext3 conversion problems

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 02:30:28PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > All chunks are completed convert to DUP, no small chunk, all to its maximum > chunk size. > So from chunk level, nothing related to convert yet. > > But for extent tree, I found several extents are heavily referred to. > Like extent

Re: Post ext3 conversion problems

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:20:37AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > -95 is -EOPNOTSUPP. > > Not a common errno in btrfs. > > Most EOPNOTSUPP are related to discard and crapped fallcate/drop extents. > > Then are you using discard mount option? I did indeed have the discard mount option enabled. I

Re: Post ext3 conversion problems

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 07:27:58PM -0700, Liu Bo wrote: > Interesting, seems that we get errors from > > btrfs_finish_ordered_io > insert_reserved_file_extent > __btrfs_drop_extents > > And splitting an inline extent throws -95. Heh, you beat me to the draw. I was just coming to the same

Re: Post ext3 conversion problems

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 05:45:59PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Sean Greenslade > <s...@seangreenslade.com> wrote: > > > In the mean time, is there any way to make the kernel more verbose about > > btrfs errors? It would be nic

Re: Post ext3 conversion problems

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 02:23:44PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > Not a mess, I think it's a good bug report. I think Qu and David know > more about the latest iteration of the convert code. If you can wait > until next week at least to see if they have questions that'd be best. > If you need to get

Post ext3 conversion problems

Hi, all. I've been playing around with an old laptop of mine, and I figured I'd use it as a learning / bugfinding opportunity. Its /home partition was originally ext3. I have a full partition image of this drive as a backup, so I can do (and have done) potentially destructive things. The system

Re: does btrfs-receive use/compare the checksums from the btrfs-send side?

On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 10:25:32PM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > On Sun, 2016-08-28 at 22:19 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > > Transports over which you're likely to send a filesystem stream > > already > > protect against corruption. > Well... in some cases,... but not always... just

btrfs fi usage bug during shrink

Hi, all. I was resizing (shrinking) a btrfs partition, and figured I'd check in on how it was going with "btrfs fi usage." It was quite startling: $ sudo btrfs fi usage /mnt/ Overall: Device size: 370.00GiB Device allocated:372.03GiB Device unallocated:

Re: RAID1 disk upgrade method

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 01:47:36PM -0500, Sean Greenslade wrote: > OK, I just misunderstood how that syntax worked. All seems good now. > I'll try to play around with some dummy configurations this weekend to > see if I can reproduce the post-replace mount bug. So I finally got some tim

Re: raid1 vs raid5

On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 05:24:31PM +0100, Psalle wrote: > Hello all and excuse me if this is a silly question. I looked around in the > wiki and list archives but couldn't find any in-depth discussion about this: > > I just realized that, since raid1 in btrfs is special (meaning only two > copies

Re: Potential to loose data in case of disk failure

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 11:30:57AM -0600, Jim Murphy wrote: > Hi all, > > What am I missing or misunderstanding? I have a newly > purchased laptop I want/need to multi boot different OSs > on. As a result after partitioning I have ended up with two > partitions on each of the two internal

Re: BTRFS as image store for KVM?

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 07:56:08PM +0200, Gert Menke wrote: > MD+LVM is very close to what I want, but md has no way to cope with silent > data corruption. So if I'd want to use a guest filesystem that has no > checksums either, I'm out of luck. > I'm honestly a bit confused here - isn't

Re: Metadata about to fill up, how to make it bigger next time?

On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 04:45:09PM -0700, Anand Patil wrote: Hi everyone, When I run btrfs fi df /path/to/fs, I see: Data, single: total=53.01GiB, used=51.79GiB System, DUP: total=32.00MiB, used=16.00KiB Metadata, DUP: total=16.00GiB, used=14.72GiB My most pressing question is, does

Re: Is it necessary to balance a btrfs raid1 array?

On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 08:43:25PM +0200, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: May be that I am missing something obvious, however I have to ask which would be the purpose to balance a two disks RAID1 system. The balance command should move the data between the disks in order to avoid some disk full

Re: Is it necessary to balance a btrfs raid1 array?

On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 12:28:56AM +0200, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: The WD datasheet says something different. It reports Non-recoverable read errors per bits read less than 1/10^14. They express the number of error in terms of number of bit reading. You instead are saying that the error

Re: Is it necessary to balance a btrfs raid1 array?

On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 11:51:19PM -0400, Zygo Blaxell wrote: This is a complex topic. I agree, and I make no claim to be an expert in any of this. Some disks have bugs in their firmware, and some of those bugs make the data sheets and most of this discussion entirely moot. The firmware is