On 2018-01-16 01:45, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:23 AM, Tom Worster wrote:
On 13 Jan 2018, at 17:09, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:24 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn
wrote:
To that end, I propose the following text for the FAQ:
Q: Do I need to run a balance re
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 9:45 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
...
>>
>> Unless some better fix is in the works, this _should_ be a systemd unit or
>> something. Until then, please put it in FAQ.
>
> At least openSUSE has a systemd unit for a long time now, but last
> time I checked (a bit over a year ago)
On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:23 AM, Tom Worster wrote:
> On 13 Jan 2018, at 17:09, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:24 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> To that end, I propose the following text for the FAQ:
>>>
>>> Q: Do I need to run a balance regularly?
>>>
>>> A: W
On 13 Jan 2018, at 17:09, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:24 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn
wrote:
To that end, I propose the following text for the FAQ:
Q: Do I need to run a balance regularly?
A: While not strictly necessary for normal operations, running a
filtered
balance reg
On 2018-01-13 17:09, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:24 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn
wrote:
To that end, I propose the following text for the FAQ:
Q: Do I need to run a balance regularly?
A: While not strictly necessary for normal operations, running a filtered
balance regularly
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:24 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn
wrote:
> To that end, I propose the following text for the FAQ:
>
> Q: Do I need to run a balance regularly?
>
> A: While not strictly necessary for normal operations, running a filtered
> balance regularly can help prevent your filesystem f
On 2018-01-12 14:26, Tom Worster wrote:
On 12 Jan 2018, at 13:24, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
OK, I've gotten a lot of good feedback on this, and the general
consensus seems to be:
* If we're going to recommend regular balance, we should explain how
it actually helps things.
* We should ment
On 12 Jan 2018, at 13:24, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
OK, I've gotten a lot of good feedback on this, and the general
consensus seems to be:
* If we're going to recommend regular balance, we should explain how
it actually helps things.
* We should mention the performance interactions with qgr
On 2018-01-08 10:55, 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 t
On 01/10/2018 05:38 AM, Duncan wrote:
> [...]
>
> And I've definitely noticed an effect since the ssd option stopped using
> the 2 MiB spreading algorithm in 4.14.
Glad to hear. :-)
> In particular, while chunk usage
> was generally stable before that and I only occasionally needed to run
> b
On 01/10/2018 10:37 PM, waxhead wrote:
> As just a regular user I would think that the first thing you would need
> is an analyze that can tell you if it is a good idea to balance or not
> in the first place.
Tooling to create that is available. Btrfs allows you to read a lot of
different data to
On 2018-01-10 15:44, Timofey Titovets wrote:
2018-01-10 21:33 GMT+03:00 Tom Worster :
On 10 Jan 2018, at 12:01, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2018-01-10 11:30, Tom Worster wrote:
Also, for future reference, the term we typically use is ENOSPC, as that's
the symbolic name for the error code y
On 2018-01-10 16:37, waxhead wrote:
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 in
Austin S. Hemmelgarn posted on Wed, 10 Jan 2018 12:01:42 -0500 as
excerpted:
>> - Some experienced users say that, to resolve a problem with DoUS, they
>> would rather recreate the filesystem than run balance.
> This is kind of independent of BTRFS. A lot of seasoned system
> administrators are
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). Th
2018-01-10 21:33 GMT+03:00 Tom Worster :
> On 10 Jan 2018, at 12:01, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
>
>> On 2018-01-10 11:30, Tom Worster wrote:
>>
>> Also, for future reference, the term we typically use is ENOSPC, as that's
>> the symbolic name for the error code you get when this happens (or when y
On 10 Jan 2018, at 12:01, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2018-01-10 11:30, Tom Worster wrote:
Also, for future reference, the term we typically use is ENOSPC, as
that's the symbolic name for the error code you get when this happens
(or when your filesystem is just normally full), but I actual
On 2018-01-10 11:30, Tom Worster wrote:
On 9 Jan 2018, at 22:49, Duncan wrote:
AFAIK, such corruption reports re balance aren't really balance, per se,
at all.
Instead, what I've seen in nearly all cases is a number of filesystem
maintenance commands involving heavy I/O colliding, that is, bei
On 9 Jan 2018, at 22:49, Duncan wrote:
AFAIK, such corruption reports re balance aren't really balance, per
se,
at all.
Instead, what I've seen in nearly all cases is a number of filesystem
maintenance commands involving heavy I/O colliding, that is, being run
at
the same time
I hope there
On 2018-01-09 23:38, Duncan wrote:
Graham Cobb posted on Mon, 08 Jan 2018 18:17:13 + as excerpted:
On 08/01/18 16:34, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
Ideally, I think it should be as generic as reasonably possible,
possibly something along the lines of:
A: While not strictly necessary, runnin
Graham Cobb posted on Mon, 08 Jan 2018 18:17:13 + as excerpted:
> On 08/01/18 16:34, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
>> Ideally, I think it should be as generic as reasonably possible,
>> possibly something along the lines of:
>>
>> A: While not strictly necessary, running regular filtered balanc
Austin S. Hemmelgarn posted on Tue, 09 Jan 2018 07:46:48 -0500 as
excerpted:
>> On 08/01/18 23:29, Martin Raiber wrote:
>>> There have been reports of (rare) corruption caused by balance (won't
>>> be detected by a scrub) here on the mailing list. So I would stay a
>>> away from btrfs balance unle
On 9 Jan 2018, at 7:23, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2018-01-08 16:43, Tom Worster wrote:
Given the documentation and the usage stats, I did not know what
options to use with balance. I spent some time reading and
researching and trying to understand the filters and how they should
relate
On 2018-01-09 03:33, Marat Khalili wrote:
On 08/01/18 19:34, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
A: While not strictly necessary, running regular filtered balances
(for example `btrfs balance start -dusage=50 -dlimit=2 -musage=50
-mlimit=4`, see `man btrfs-balance` for more info on what the options
me
On 2018-01-08 16:43, Tom Worster wrote:
On 01/08/2018 04:55 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2018-01-08 11:20, ein wrote:
> On 01/08/2018 04:55 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
>
> > [...]
> >
> > And here's the FAQ entry:
> >
> > Q: Do I need to run a balance regularly?
> >
> > A: In general
On 08/01/18 19:34, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
A: While not strictly necessary, running regular filtered balances
(for example `btrfs balance start -dusage=50 -dlimit=2 -musage=50
-mlimit=4`, see `man btrfs-balance` for more info on what the options
mean) can help keep a volume healthy by mitig
On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 04:43:02PM -0500, Tom Worster wrote:
> On 01/08/2018 04:55 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
>
> >On 2018-01-08 11:20, ein wrote:
> >
> >> On 01/08/2018 04:55 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> >>
> >> > [...]
> >> >
> >> > And here's the FAQ entry:
> >> >
> >> > Q: Do I need
On 01/08/2018 04:55 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2018-01-08 11:20, ein wrote:
> On 01/08/2018 04:55 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
>
> > [...]
> >
> > And here's the FAQ entry:
> >
> > Q: Do I need to run a balance regularly?
> >
> > A: In general usage, no. A full unfiltered balance typ
On 08.01.2018 19:34 Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> On 2018-01-08 13:17, Graham Cobb wrote:
>> On 08/01/18 16:34, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
>>> Ideally, I think it should be as generic as reasonably possible,
>>> possibly something along the lines of:
>>>
>>> A: While not strictly necessary, runnin
On 2018-01-08 13:17, Graham Cobb wrote:
On 08/01/18 16:34, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
Ideally, I think it should be as generic as reasonably possible,
possibly something along the lines of:
A: While not strictly necessary, running regular filtered balances (for
example `btrfs balance start -du
On 08/01/18 16:34, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> Ideally, I think it should be as generic as reasonably possible,
> possibly something along the lines of:
>
> A: While not strictly necessary, running regular filtered balances (for
> example `btrfs balance start -dusage=50 -dlimit=2 -musage=50 -mli
On 2018-01-08 11:20, ein wrote:
On 01/08/2018 04:55 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
[...]
And here's the FAQ entry:
Q: Do I need to run a balance regularly?
A: In general usage, no. A full unfiltered balance typically takes a
long time, and will rewrite huge amounts of data unnecessarily. You
On 01/08/2018 04:55 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> [...]
>
> And here's the FAQ entry:
>
> Q: Do I need to run a balance regularly?
>
> A: In general usage, no. A full unfiltered balance typically takes a
> long time, and will rewrite huge amounts of data unnecessarily. You may
> wish to run
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). This ended up
integrated par
34 matches
Mail list logo