February 3, 2017 11:26 PM, "Goldwyn Rodrigues" wrote:
> On 02/03/2017 04:13 PM, j...@capsec.org wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > I'm currently running a balance (without any filters) on a 4 drives raid1
> > filesystem. The array contains 3 3TB drives and one 6TB drive; I'm
At 02/08/2017 09:56 PM, Filipe Manana wrote:
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 12:39 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
At 02/07/2017 11:55 PM, Filipe Manana wrote:
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 12:22 AM, Qu Wenruo
wrote:
At 02/07/2017 12:09 AM, Goldwyn Rodrigues
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 12:39 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> At 02/07/2017 11:55 PM, Filipe Manana wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 12:22 AM, Qu Wenruo
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> At 02/07/2017 12:09 AM, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
At 02/07/2017 11:55 PM, Filipe Manana wrote:
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 12:22 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
At 02/07/2017 12:09 AM, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
Hi Qu,
On 02/05/2017 07:45 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
At 02/04/2017 09:47 AM, Jorg Bornschein wrote:
February 4, 2017
On 2017-02-07 14:47, Kai Krakow wrote:
Am Mon, 6 Feb 2017 08:19:37 -0500
schrieb "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" :
MDRAID uses stripe selection based on latency and other measurements
(like head position). It would be nice if btrfs implemented similar
functionality. This would
Am Mon, 6 Feb 2017 08:19:37 -0500
schrieb "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" :
> > MDRAID uses stripe selection based on latency and other measurements
> > (like head position). It would be nice if btrfs implemented similar
> > functionality. This would also be helpful for selecting a
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 12:22 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> At 02/07/2017 12:09 AM, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi Qu,
>>
>> On 02/05/2017 07:45 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> At 02/04/2017 09:47 AM, Jorg Bornschein wrote:
February 4, 2017 1:07 AM,
At 02/07/2017 12:09 AM, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
Hi Qu,
On 02/05/2017 07:45 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
At 02/04/2017 09:47 AM, Jorg Bornschein wrote:
February 4, 2017 1:07 AM, "Goldwyn Rodrigues" wrote:
Quata support was indeed active -- and it warned me that the
Hi Qu,
On 02/05/2017 07:45 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> At 02/04/2017 09:47 AM, Jorg Bornschein wrote:
>> February 4, 2017 1:07 AM, "Goldwyn Rodrigues" wrote:
>>
>>
>> Quata support was indeed active -- and it warned me that the qroup
>> data was inconsistent.
>>
>>
On 2017-02-04 16:10, Kai Krakow wrote:
Am Sat, 04 Feb 2017 20:50:03 +
schrieb "Jorg Bornschein" :
February 4, 2017 1:07 AM, "Goldwyn Rodrigues"
wrote:
Yes, please check if disabling quotas makes a difference in
execution time of btrfs balance.
Just
At 02/06/2017 05:14 PM, Jorg Bornschein wrote:
February 6, 2017 1:45 AM, "Qu Wenruo"
Would you please provide the kernel version?
v4.9 introduced a bad fix for qgroup balance, which doesn't completely fix
qgroup bytes leaking,
but also hugely slow down the balance
February 6, 2017 1:45 AM, "Qu Wenruo"
> Would you please provide the kernel version?
>
> v4.9 introduced a bad fix for qgroup balance, which doesn't completely fix
> qgroup bytes leaking,
> but also hugely slow down the balance process:
>
I'm a bit behind the times:
At 02/04/2017 09:47 AM, Jorg Bornschein wrote:
February 4, 2017 1:07 AM, "Goldwyn Rodrigues" wrote:
On 02/03/2017 06:30 PM, Jorg Bornschein wrote:
February 3, 2017 11:26 PM, "Goldwyn Rodrigues" wrote:
Hi,
I'm currently running a balance (without any
Am Sat, 04 Feb 2017 20:50:03 +
schrieb "Jorg Bornschein" :
> February 4, 2017 1:07 AM, "Goldwyn Rodrigues"
> wrote:
>
> > Yes, please check if disabling quotas makes a difference in
> > execution time of btrfs balance.
>
> Just FYI: With quotas disabled
February 4, 2017 1:07 AM, "Goldwyn Rodrigues" wrote:
> Yes, please check if disabling quotas makes a difference in execution
> time of btrfs balance.
Just FYI: With quotas disabled it took ~20h to finish the balance instead of
the projected >30 days. Therefore, in my case,
Lakshmipathi.G posted on Sat, 04 Feb 2017 08:25:04 +0530 as excerpted:
>>Should quota support generally be disabled during balances?
>
> If this true and quota impacts balance throughput, at-least there should
> an alert message like "Running Balance with quota will affect
> performance" or
>Should quota support generally be disabled during balances?
If this true and quota impacts balance throughput, at-least there
should an alert message like "Running Balance with quota will affect
performance" or similar before starting.
Cheers,
Lakshmipathi.G
--
To unsubscribe from this
February 4, 2017 1:07 AM, "Goldwyn Rodrigues" wrote:
> On 02/03/2017 06:30 PM, Jorg Bornschein wrote:
>
>> February 3, 2017 11:26 PM, "Goldwyn Rodrigues" wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm currently running a balance (without any filters) on a 4 drives raid1
>>
On 02/03/2017 06:30 PM, Jorg Bornschein wrote:
> February 3, 2017 11:26 PM, "Goldwyn Rodrigues" wrote:
>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm currently running a balance (without any filters) on a 4 drives raid1
>>> filesystem. The array
>>> contains 3 3TB drives and one 6TB drive; I'm
February 3, 2017 11:26 PM, "Goldwyn Rodrigues" wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm currently running a balance (without any filters) on a 4 drives raid1
>> filesystem. The array
>> contains 3 3TB drives and one 6TB drive; I'm running the rebalance because
>> the 6TB drive recently
>>
On 02/03/2017 04:13 PM, j...@capsec.org wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> I'm currently running a balance (without any filters) on a 4 drives raid1
> filesystem. The array contains 3 3TB drives and one 6TB drive; I'm running
> the rebalance because the 6TB drive recently replaced a 2TB drive.
>
>
> I
Hi,
I'm currently running a balance (without any filters) on a 4 drives raid1
filesystem. The array contains 3 3TB drives and one 6TB drive; I'm running the
rebalance because the 6TB drive recently replaced a 2TB drive.
I know that balance is not supposed to be a fast operation, but this
22 matches
Mail list logo