Re: BTRFS did it's job nicely (thanks!)

Sterling Windmill wrote: Out of curiosity, what led to you choosing RAID1 for data but RAID10 for metadata? I've flip flipped between these two modes myself after finding out that BTRFS RAID10 doesn't work how I would've expected. Wondering what made you choose your configuration. Thanks!

Re: BTRFS did it's job nicely (thanks!)

Duncan wrote: waxhead posted on Fri, 02 Nov 2018 20:54:40 +0100 as excerpted: Note that I tend to interpret the btrfs de st / output as if the error was NOT fixed even if (seems clearly that) it was, so I think the output is a bit misleading... just saying... See the btrfs-device manpage

BTRFS did it's job nicely (thanks!)

Hi, my main computer runs on a 7x SSD BTRFS as rootfs with data:RAID1 and metadata:RAID10. One SSD is probably about to fail, and it seems that BTRFS fixed it nicely (thanks everyone!) I decided to just post the ugly details in case someone just wants to have a look. Note that I tend to

BTRFS bad block management. Does it exist?

In case BTRFS fails to WRITE to a disk. What happens? Does the bad area get mapped out somehow? Does it try again until it succeed or until it "times out" or reach a threshold counter? Does it eventually try to write to a different disk (in case of using the raid1/10 profile?)

Re: lazytime mount option—no support in Btrfs

Adam Hunt wrote: Back in 2014 Ted Tso introduced the lazytime mount option for ext4 and shortly thereafter a more generic VFS implementation which was then merged into mainline. His early patches included support for Btrfs but those changes were removed prior to the feature being merged. His

Re: [PATCH 0/4] 3- and 4- copy RAID1

Hugo Mills wrote: On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 08:39:48AM +, Duncan wrote: Duncan posted on Wed, 18 Jul 2018 07:20:09 + as excerpted: Perhaps it's a case of coder's view (no code doing it that way, it's just a coincidental oddity conditional on equal sizes), vs. sysadmin's view (code or

Re: [PATCH 0/4] 3- and 4- copy RAID1

waxhead wrote: David Sterba wrote: An interesting question is the naming of the extended profiles. I picked something that can be easily understood but it's not a final proposal. Years ago, Hugo proposed a naming scheme that described the non-standard raid varieties of the btrfs flavor: https

Re: [PATCH 0/4] 3- and 4- copy RAID1

David Sterba wrote: An interesting question is the naming of the extended profiles. I picked something that can be easily understood but it's not a final proposal. Years ago, Hugo proposed a naming scheme that described the non-standard raid varieties of the btrfs flavor:

Re: unsolvable technical issues?

Chris Murphy wrote: On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 5:13 PM, waxhead wrote: According to this: https://stratis-storage.github.io/StratisSoftwareDesign.pdf Page 4 , section 1.2 It claims that BTRFS still have significant technical issues that may never be resolved. Could someone shed some light

Re: unsolvable technical issues?

David Sterba wrote: On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 01:13:31AM +0200, waxhead wrote: According to this: https://stratis-storage.github.io/StratisSoftwareDesign.pdf Page 4 , section 1.2 It claims that BTRFS still have significant technical issues that may never be resolved. Could someone shed some

Re: unsolvable technical issues?

Jukka Larja wrote: waxhead wrote 24.6.2018 klo 1.01: Nikolay Borisov wrote: On 22.06.2018 02:13, waxhead wrote: According to this: https://stratis-storage.github.io/StratisSoftwareDesign.pdf Page 4 , section 1.2 It claims that BTRFS still have significant technical issues that may never

Re: unsolvable technical issues?

Nikolay Borisov wrote: On 22.06.2018 02:13, waxhead wrote: According to this: https://stratis-storage.github.io/StratisSoftwareDesign.pdf Page 4 , section 1.2 It claims that BTRFS still have significant technical issues that may never be resolved. Could someone shed some light on exactly

unsolvable technical issues?

According to this: https://stratis-storage.github.io/StratisSoftwareDesign.pdf Page 4 , section 1.2 It claims that BTRFS still have significant technical issues that may never be resolved. Could someone shed some light on exactly what these technical issues might be?! What are BTRFS biggest

Re: RAID56

Gandalf Corvotempesta wrote: Another kernel release was made. Any improvements in RAID56? I didn't see any changes in that sector, is something still being worked on or it's stuck waiting for something ? Based on official BTRFS status page, RAID56 is the only "unstable" item marked in red. No

Re: replace drive with write_io_errs?

Adam Bahe wrote: Hello all, 'All' includes me as well, but keep in mind I am not a BTRFS dev. I have a drive that has been in my btrfs array for about 6 months now. It was purchased new. Its an IBM-ESXS SAS drive rebranded from an HGST HUH721010AL4200. Here is the following stats, it passed

Re: RAID56 - 6 parity raid

Andrei Borzenkov wrote: 02.05.2018 21:17, waxhead пишет: Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: On 05/02/2018 06:55 PM, waxhead wrote: So again, which problem would solve having the parity checksummed ? On the best of my knowledge nothing. In any case the data is checksummed so it is impossible

Re: RAID56 - 6 parity raid

Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: On 05/02/2018 06:55 PM, waxhead wrote: So again, which problem would solve having the parity checksummed ? On the best of my knowledge nothing. In any case the data is checksummed so it is impossible to return corrupted data (modulo bug :-) ). I am not a BTRFS

Re: RAID56 - 6 parity raid

Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: Hi On 05/02/2018 03:47 AM, Duncan wrote: Gandalf Corvotempesta posted on Tue, 01 May 2018 21:57:59 + as excerpted: Hi to all I've found some patches from Andrea Mazzoleni that adds support up to 6 parity raid. Why these are wasn't merged ? With modern disk size,

libbrtfsutil questions

Howdy! I am pondering writing a little C program that use libmicrohttpd and libbtrfsutil to display some very basic (overview) details about BTRFS. I was hoping to display the same information that'btrfs fi sh /mnt' and 'btrfs fi us -T /mnt' do, but somewhat combined. Since I recently just

Re: Status of RAID5/6

Liu Bo wrote: On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 9:50 AM, Menion wrote: Hi all I am trying to understand the status of RAID5/6 in BTRFS I know that there are some discussion ongoing on the RFC patch proposed by Liu bo But it seems that everything stopped last summary. Also it mentioned

Re: Crashes running btrfs scrub

Liu Bo wrote: On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 5:26 PM, Liu Bo wrote: On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 2:46 PM, Mike Stevens wrote: Could you please paste the whole dmesg, it looks like it hit btrfs_abort_transaction(), which should give us more information

Re: Crashes running btrfs scrub

is (unlike raid5 or raid6) working really well. PS! I'm not a BTRFS dev so don't run away just yet. Someone else may magically help you recover, Best of luck! - Waxhead -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.

Re: How to replace a failed drive in btrfs RAID 1 filesystem

Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2018-03-09 11:02, Paul Richards wrote: Hello there, I have a 3 disk btrfs RAID 1 filesystem, with a single failed drive. Before I attempt any recovery I’d like to ask what is the recommended approach?  (The wiki docs suggest consulting here before attempting

Per subvolume "RAID" level?!

Just out of curiosity, are there any work going on for enabling different "RAID" levels per subvolume?! And out of even more curiosity how is this planned to be handled with btrfs balance?! When per subvolume "RAID" levels are good to go, how would you then run the balance filters to convert

Please update the BTRFS status page

The latest released kernel is 4.15 -- 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: degraded permanent mount option

Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2018-01-29 12:58, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: 29.01.2018 14:24, Adam Borowski пишет: ... So any event (the user's request) has already happened.  A rc system, of which systemd is one, knows whether we reached the "want root filesystem" or "want secondary

Re: Superblock update: Is there really any benefits of updating synchronously?

Hans van Kranenburg wrote: On 01/23/2018 08:51 PM, waxhead wrote: Nikolay Borisov wrote: On 23.01.2018 16:20, Hans van Kranenburg wrote: [...] We also had a discussion about the "backup roots" that are stored besides the superblock, and that they are "better than nothing

Re: Superblock update: Is there really any benefits of updating synchronously?

Nikolay Borisov wrote: On 23.01.2018 16:20, Hans van Kranenburg wrote: On 01/23/2018 10:03 AM, Nikolay Borisov wrote: On 23.01.2018 09:03, waxhead wrote: Note: This have been mentioned before, but since I see some issues related to superblocks I think it would be good to bring up

Superblock update: Is there really any benefits of updating synchronously?

Note: This have been mentioned before, but since I see some issues related to superblocks I think it would be good to bring up the question again. According to the information found in the wiki: https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/On-disk_Format#Superblock The superblocks are updated

Re: Recommendations for balancing as part of regular maintenance?

Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: So, for a while now I've been recommending small filtered balances to people as part of regular maintenance for BTRFS filesystems under the logic that it does help in some cases and can't really hurt (and if done right, is really inexpensive in terms of resources).

Re: A Big Thank You, and some Notes on Current Recovery Tools.

Qu Wenruo wrote: On 2018年01月01日 08:48, Stirling Westrup wrote: Okay, I want to start this post with a HUGE THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU to Nikolay Borisov and most especially to Qu Wenruo! Thanks to their tireless help in answering all my dumb questions I have managed to get my BTRFS

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: enchanse raid1/10 balance heuristic for non rotating devices

Timofey Titovets wrote: Currently btrfs raid1/10 balancer blance requests to mirrors, based on pid % num of mirrors. Update logic and make it understood if underline device are non rotational. If one of mirrors are non rotational, then all read requests will be moved to non rotational

Re: Tiered storage?

As a regular BTRFS user I can tell you that there is no such thing as hot data tracking yet. Some people seem to use bcache together with btrfs and come asking for help on the mailing list. Raid5/6 have received a few fixes recently, and it *may* soon me worth trying out raid5/6 for data, but

Re: Several questions regarding btrfs

ST wrote: Hello, I've recently learned about btrfs and consider to utilize for my needs. I have several questions in this regard: I manage a dedicated server remotely and have some sort of script that installs an OS from several images. There I can define partitions and their FSs. 1. By

Re: Parity-based redundancy (RAID5/6/triple parity and beyond) on BTRFS and MDADM (Dec 2014) – Ronny Egners Blog

Dave wrote: Has this been discussed here? Has anything changed since it was written? I have (more or less) been following the mailing list since this feature was suggested. I have been drooling over it since, but not much have happened. Parity-based redundancy (RAID5/6/triple parity and

8 disk metadata radi10 + data raid1

Hi, On one of my machines I run a BTRFS filesystem with the following configuration Kernel: 4.11.0-1-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 4.11.6-1 (2017-06-19) x86_64 GNU/Linux Disks: 8 Metadata: Raid 10 Data: Raid1 One of the disks is going bad , and while the system still runs fine I ran some md5sum's on

Re: RedHat 7.4 Release Notes: "Btrfs has been deprecated" - wut?

Brendan Hide wrote: The title seems alarmist to me - and I suspect it is going to be misconstrued. :-/ From the release notes at

Re: btrfs raid assurance

Hugo Mills wrote: You can see about the disk usage in different scenarios with the online tool at: http://carfax.org.uk/btrfs-usage/ Hugo. As a side note, have you ever considered making this online tool (that should never go away just for the record) part of btrfs-progs e.g. a

Re: Best Practice: Add new device to RAID1 pool

Chris Murphy wrote: On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 5:27 AM, Cloud Admin wrote: I am a little bit confused because the balance command is running since 12 hours and only 3GB of data are touched. That's incredibly slow. Something isn't right. Using btrfs-debug -b from

Exactly what is wrong with RAID5/6

I am trying to piece together the actual status of the RAID5/6 bit of BTRFS. The wiki refer to kernel 3.19 which was released in February 2015 so I assume that the information there is a tad outdated (the last update on the wiki page was July 2016)

Re: Home storage with btrfs

Same here, Have been using BTRFS for a 'scratch' disk since about 2014. The disk have had quite some abuse and no issues yet. I don't use compression, snapshots or any fancy features. I have recently moved all of the root filesystem to BTRFS with 5x SSD disks set up in RAID1 and everything is

Why do BTRFS (still) forgets what device to write to?

I am doing some test on BTRFS with both data and metadata in raid1. uname -a Linux daffy 4.9.0-1-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 4.9.6-3 (2017-01-28) x86_64 GNU/Linux btrfs--version btrfs-progs v4.7.3 01. mkfs.btrfs /dev/sd[fgh]1 02. mount /dev/sdf1 /btrfs_test/ 03. btrfs balance start -dconvert=raid1

Re: raid1 degraded mount still produce single chunks, writeable mount not allowed

Chris Murphy wrote: On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 6:48 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: Again, my data is fine. The problem I'm having is this: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/tree/Documentation/filesystems/btrfs.txt?id=refs/tags/v4.10.1 Which

Re: RAID56 status?

Hugo Mills wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 11:35:49PM +0100, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: On Sun, 2017-01-22 at 22:22 +0100, Jan Vales wrote: Therefore my question: whats the status of raid5/6 is in btrfs? Is it somehow "production"-ready by

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote: On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 09:57:17PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote: Great. I made to minor adaption. I added a link to the Status page to my warning in before the kernel log by feature page. And I also mentioned that at the time the page was last updated the latest

Re: Is stability a joke?

Zoiled wrote: Chris Mason wrote: On 09/11/2016 04:55 AM, Waxhead wrote: I have been following BTRFS for years and have recently been starting to use BTRFS more and more and as always BTRFS' stability is a hot topic. Some says that BTRFS is a dead end research project while others claim

Re: Is stability a joke?

Martin Steigerwald wrote: Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 13:43:59 CEST schrieb Martin Steigerwald: The Nouveau graphics driver have a nice feature matrix on it's webpage and I think that BTRFS perhaps should consider doing something like that on it's official wiki as well BTRFS also has a

Re: Is stability a joke?

Martin Steigerwald wrote: Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 13:21:30 CEST schrieb Zoiled: Martin Steigerwald wrote: Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 10:55:21 CEST schrieb Waxhead: I have been following BTRFS for years and have recently been starting to use BTRFS more and more and as always BTRFS

Is stability a joke?

I have been following BTRFS for years and have recently been starting to use BTRFS more and more and as always BTRFS' stability is a hot topic. Some says that BTRFS is a dead end research project while others claim the opposite. Taking a quick glance at the wiki does not say much about what is

Re: Btrfs scrub failure for raid 6 kernel 4.3

Chris Murphy wrote: Well all the generations on all devices are now the same, and so are the chunk trees. I haven't looked at them in detail to see if there are any discrepancies among them. If you don't care much for this file system, then you could try btrfs check --repair, using btrfs-progs

Re: Btrfs scrub failure for raid 6 kernel 4.3

Waxhead wrote: Chris Murphy wrote: Well all the generations on all devices are now the same, and so are the chunk trees. I haven't looked at them in detail to see if there are any discrepancies among them. If you don't care much for this file system, then you could try btrfs check --repair

Re: Btrfs scrub failure for raid 6 kernel 4.3

Chris Murphy wrote: On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Waxhead <waxh...@online.no> wrote: I tried the following btrfs-image -t4 -c9 /dev/sdb1 /btrfs_raid6.img checksum verify failed on 28734324736 found C3E98F3B wanted EB2392C6 checksum verify failed on 28734324736 found C3E98F3B

Re: Btrfs scrub failure for raid 6 kernel 4.3

Chris Murphy wrote: On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Waxhead <waxh...@online.no> wrote: Since all drives register and since I can even mount the filesystem. OK so you've umounted the file system, reconnected all devices, mounted the file system normally, and there are no problems re

Re: Btrfs scrub failure for raid 6 kernel 4.3

Duncan wrote: Waxhead posted on Mon, 28 Dec 2015 03:04:33 +0100 as excerpted: Duncan wrote: Waxhead posted on Mon, 28 Dec 2015 00:06:46 +0100 as excerpted: btrfs scrub status /mnt scrub status for 2832346e-0720-499f-8239-355534e5721b scrub started at Sun Mar 29 23:21:04 2015 Now

Btrfs scrub failure for raid 6 kernel 4.3

Hi, I have a "toy-array" of 6x USB drives hooked up to a hub where I made a btrfs raid 6 data+metadata filesystem. I copied some files to the filesystem, ripped out one USB drive and ruined it dd if=/dev/random to various locations on the drive. Put the USB drive back and the filesystem

Re: Btrfs scrub failure for raid 6 kernel 4.3

Duncan wrote: Waxhead posted on Mon, 28 Dec 2015 00:06:46 +0100 as excerpted: btrfs scrub status /mnt scrub status for 2832346e-0720-499f-8239-355534e5721b scrub started at Sun Mar 29 23:21:04 2015 and finished after 00:01:04 total bytes scrubbed: 1.97GiB with 14549 errors

Re: Btrfs scrub failure for raid 6 kernel 4.3

Chris Murphy wrote: On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 6:59 AM, Waxhead <waxh...@online.no> wrote: Hi, I have a "toy-array" of 6x USB drives hooked up to a hub where I made a btrfs raid 6 data+metadata filesystem. I copied some files to the filesystem, ripped out one USB drive and ruin

Re: Hot data Tracking

David Sterba wrote: On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 05:49:41AM +0100, Timo Witte wrote: What happened to the hot data tracking feature in btrfs? There are a lot of old patches from aug 2010, but it looks like the feature has been completly removed from the current version of btrfs. Is this feature

Is btrfsck really required?

After playing around with btrfs for a while, reading about it and also watching Avi Miller's presentation on youtube I am starting to wonder why one would need btrfsck at all. I am no expert in filesystems so I apologize if any of these questions may sound a bit stupid. 1. How self-healing is

How well does BTRFS manage different sized disks?

Hi, Can someone shed some light on how BTRFS will manage a bunch of disks of varying size for the planned raid5/6. e.g. 3x 2TB disk and 1x 250GB disk? If using a raid5 setup will a 750GB of usable data automatically be used as a 4 disk raid5 while the rest is used as a 3 disk raid5?! If so;

Will BTRFS repair or restore data if corrupted?

Hi, From what I have read BTRFS does replace a bad copy of data with a known good copy (if it has one). Will BTRFS try to repair the corrupt data or will it simply silently restore the data without the user knowing that a file has been fixed? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line