On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 02:01:58PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> On 2017年09月10日 01:44, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> > So, should I assume that btrfs progs git has some issue since there is
> > no plausible way that a check --repair should be faster than a regular
> > check?
>
> Yes, the assumption that
On 2017年09月10日 01:44, Marc MERLIN wrote:
So, should I assume that btrfs progs git has some issue since there is
no plausible way that a check --repair should be faster than a regular
check?
Yes, the assumption that repair should be no faster than RO check is
correct.
Especially for clean
So, should I assume that btrfs progs git has some issue since there is
no plausible way that a check --repair should be faster than a regular
check?
Thanks,
Marc
On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 07:45:25AM -0700, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 04:05:04PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> > >
On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 04:05:04PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> > gargamel:~# btrfs fi df /mnt/btrfs_pool1
> > Data, single: total.60TiB, used.54TiB
> > System, DUP: total2.00MiB, used=1.19MiB
> > Metadata, DUP: totalX.00GiB, used.69GiB
>
> Wait for a minute.
>
> Is that .69GiB means 706 MiB? Or
Qu Wenruo posted on Tue, 05 Sep 2017 17:06:35 +0800 as excerpted:
>> See if these numbers, copied and reformatted from his post with spaces
>> inserted either side of the numbers and the equals signs deleted,
>> arrive any less garbled:
>>
>> Data, single: total 10.60 TiB, used 10.54 TiB System,
On 2017年09月05日 16:54, Duncan wrote:
Qu Wenruo posted on Tue, 05 Sep 2017 16:05:04 +0800 as excerpted:
On 2017年09月05日 10:55, Marc MERLIN wrote:
gargamel:~# btrfs fi df /mnt/btrfs_pool1
Data, single: total.60TiB, used.54TiB
System, DUP: total2.00MiB, used=1.19MiB
Metadata, DUP:
Qu Wenruo posted on Tue, 05 Sep 2017 16:05:04 +0800 as excerpted:
> On 2017年09月05日 10:55, Marc MERLIN wrote:
>>
>> gargamel:~# btrfs fi df /mnt/btrfs_pool1
>> Data, single: total.60TiB, used.54TiB
>> System, DUP: total2.00MiB, used=1.19MiB
>> Metadata, DUP: totalX.00GiB, used.69GiB
>
> Wait
On 2017年09月05日 10:55, Marc MERLIN wrote:
On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 09:21:55AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
On 2017年09月05日 09:05, Marc MERLIN wrote:
Ok, I don't want to sound like I'm complaining :) but I updated
btrfs-progs to top of tree in git, installed it, and ran it on an 8TiB
filesystem
Ok, not quite hours, but check takes 88mn, check --repair takes 11mn
gargamel:/var/local/src/btrfs-progs# time btrfs check /dev/mapper/dshelf1
Checking filesystem on /dev/mapper/dshelf1
UUID: 36f5079e-ca6c-4855-8639-ccb82695c18d
checking extents
checking free space cache
cache and super
On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 09:21:55AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> On 2017年09月05日 09:05, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> >Ok, I don't want to sound like I'm complaining :) but I updated
> >btrfs-progs to top of tree in git, installed it, and ran it on an 8TiB
> >filesystem that used to take 12H or so to
On 2017年09月05日 09:05, Marc MERLIN wrote:
Ok, I don't want to sound like I'm complaining :) but I updated
btrfs-progs to top of tree in git, installed it, and ran it on an 8TiB
filesystem that used to take 12H or so to check.
How much space allocated for that 8T fs?
If metadata is not that
11 matches
Mail list logo
