On Thu, 2015-11-05 at 10:44 +, OmegaPhil wrote:
> On 05/11/15 04:18, Duncan wrote:
> > OmegaPhil posted on Wed, 04 Nov 2015 21:53:09 + as excerpted:
> > VM image files (and large database files, for the same reason) are
> > a bit
> > of a problem on btrfs, and indeed, any COW-based
On 2015-11-06 15:15, Calvin Walton wrote:
On Thu, 2015-11-05 at 10:44 +, OmegaPhil wrote:
On 05/11/15 04:18, Duncan wrote:
OmegaPhil posted on Wed, 04 Nov 2015 21:53:09 + as excerpted:
VM image files (and large database files, for the same reason) are
a bit
of a problem on btrfs, and
On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 10:44:51AM +, OmegaPhil wrote:
> So a couple of gig still unaccountable but irrelevant. Thanks, problem
> solved! Although hopefully checksumming will be allowed on nocow files
> in the future as thats currently 17% of all data unprotected and will
> get worse...
On 05/11/15 04:18, Duncan wrote:
> OmegaPhil posted on Wed, 04 Nov 2015 21:53:09 + as excerpted:
>
>> The volume doesn't change hugely over time, so it really ought not to
>> have broken so quickly - a quick rundown of the storage usage:
>>
>> 36% general (small files, some smallish videos)
On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 09:10:42PM +, OmegaPhil wrote:
> Back in September I noticed that 'sudo du -chs /mnt/storage-1' reported
> 887GB used and 'df -h' 920GB for this particular volume - I went on
> #btrfs for any suggestions, and balancing + defraging made no
> difference. It had no
On 04/11/15 21:30, Hugo Mills wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 09:10:42PM +, OmegaPhil wrote:
>> Back in September I noticed that 'sudo du -chs /mnt/storage-1' reported
>> 887GB used and 'df -h' 920GB for this particular volume - I went on
>> #btrfs for any suggestions, and balancing +
Back in September I noticed that 'sudo du -chs /mnt/storage-1' reported
887GB used and 'df -h' 920GB for this particular volume - I went on
#btrfs for any suggestions, and balancing + defraging made no
difference. It had no subvolumes/snapshots etc, I basically used it like
a checksumed ext4fs.
OmegaPhil posted on Wed, 04 Nov 2015 21:53:09 + as excerpted:
> The volume doesn't change hugely over time, so it really ought not to
> have broken so quickly - a quick rundown of the storage usage:
>
> 36% general (small files, some smallish videos)
> 24% music 23% pr0n 17% VMs
>
> But in
